Some have tried to debunk the view that the West implicitly or explicitly promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would
not expand east after German reunification and
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact). These claims are misleading and obfuscate the historical record of at least a clear understanding,
if not promise that there should be no NATO expansion eastward in any way, shape or form. At the very least the West made a implied
commitment not to expand NATO east. It is more precise to say, however, that the West gave an explicit verbal, that is, unwritten
guarantee not to expand NATO beyond a united Germany; something both sides understood. This broken promise or understanding and the
expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders has led now to the misnamed ‘new cold war.’
One commentator, for example, argues there was no promise, claiming the discussions only touched on NATO deployments to the territory
of what would become the former GDR after German reunification. But the writer obfuscates the meaning of a recent Gorbachev statement
in making his claim. He quotes Gorbachev from an RBTH interview this way: “‘The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all,
and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures
would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation
was done.
And
fulfilled'”.
To be sure, Pifer acknowledges that Gorbachev also said that NATO’s expansion beyond Germany was “a violation of the spirit of
the statements and assurances made to us
in 1990”.
The vagueness lies in the fact, as Gorbachev notes, that NATO expansion per se was never explicitly discussed. How can something
that was not discussed be considered a violation of a trust when it later happens? Because it was assumed by all sides and implied
by various Western statements that the West understood that USSR was opposed to NATO expanding to the former GDR’s territory, no
less its expanding much farther east, and that per the 1990 discussions it was implicitly understood that NATO would not expanding
to GDR territory or anywhere further east.
This becomes evident in reading a more precise rendering of the Baker-Gorbachev exchange than the one Pifer presents, and RBTH
managed to get Gorbachev to expound on. In reality, new archival documents show that Baker said to Gorbachev: “Would you prefer to
see a unified 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?” As one author notes: “Baker’s
phrasing of the second, more attractive option meant that NATO’s jurisdiction would not even extend to East Germany, since NATO’s
‘present position’ in February 1990 remained exactly where it had been throughout the Cold War: with its eastern edge on the line
still dividing the two Germanies. In other words, a united Germany would be, de facto, half in and half out of the alliance. According
to Baker, Gorbachev responded, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’ This means that their discussion
implied an assumption that the discussion was about any kind of expansion anywhere to the east, whether in Germany or
elsewhere. Other statements
and discussions further suggest that the assumption was there should be no NATO expansion eastward in any way. That assumption means
a tacit agreement was reached.
An Assumed and Implied Promise Broken
At a minimum, the West certainly gave the impression during talks on Germany’s reunification in early 1990 that it was promising
Moscow that NATO at the least for some time would not take in any new members besides reunified Germany or take advantage of the
disappearance of the Warsaw Pact in any way. This approximates the position of then US Ambassador to Moscow
Jack Matlock. Western diplomats’
language in discussions with Soviet officials, moreover, resembled full-fledged promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany, and it
is no surprise the Soviets perceived it that way. For all intents and purposes, there was a de facto promise not to expand NATO after
united Germany’s incorporation into the Atlantic alliance. The sum of the discussions at the time makes this clear.
On 9 November 1990, for example, US Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in the Kremlin’s St.
Catherine Hall that NATO would not expand beyond reunified Germany “one inch in the eastern direction” if NATO even maintained its
presence in Germany after reunification. He added: “We think that consultations and discussions within the framework of the mechanism
‘Two Plus Four’ should give a guarantee that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spreading of the military organization
NATO to the East” (Yevgenii Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike (Moscow: Sovershenno Sekretno, 1999), pp. 231-32 and Uwe Klussman,
Matthias Schepp, and Klaus Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?,” Der Spiegel,
26 November 2009). Baker now claims he never made any such promise. However, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s
chief of staff, Frank Elbe, has written that when he met with Baker on 2 February 1990, the two agreed that there was to be no NATO
expansion to the East and this would be communicated to the Soviets to facilitate their acceptance of reunified Germany’s entrance
into the alliance (Klussman, Schepp, and Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Easteward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”). In his
1995 memoir, Gorbachev remembers Baker asking him: “Assuming that (German) reunification takes place, what is preferable for you:
a united Germany outside NATO, fully independent without American troops, or a united Germany preserving ties to NATO but under a
guarantee that NATO jurisdiction and troops will not spread to the east from today’s position.” Gorbachev says that although he did
not commit to either of these at that time, “the latter part of Baker’s phrase became the nucleus of the formula on the basis of
which compromise on Germany’s military-political status was later reached.” (Mikhail Gorbachev, Zhizni i reform, Kniga 2, Moscow,
Novosti, 1995, p. 167).
According to declassified German documents, on 10 February 1990, FRG Foreign Minister Genscher told his Soviet counterpart Eduard
Shevardnadze: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is
certain: NATO will not expand to the east” (James M. Goldgeier and Michael McFaul, Power and Purpose: U.S. Policy Toward Russia After
the Cold War, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 184-5). Videos of Genscher’s and Baker’s 1990 statements to
the press promising NATO would not expand beyond Germany are readily available (“Abmachung 1990: ‘Keine Osterweiterung der NATO’
– Aussenminister Gensher & Baker,” Antikrieg TV, 6 July 2014).
However, weeks later Baker was claiming he already was getting signals that “Central European countries wanted to join NATO,” to
which Genscher responded that they “should not touch this at this point.” The exchange seems to suggest that at least Genscher did
not necessarily see the commitment not to expand NATO as permanent or one encompassing the east outside the GDR (Klussman, Schepp,
and Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”). Although some, perhaps all of these pledges
came in discussions of a possible NATO expansion to the former GDR’s territory as part of the FRG after reunification, the assumption
at the time was that expansion beyond the GDR was unthinkable. Since Western and Soviet leaders were agreeing that a unified Germany
could join NATO, the promises not to expand to the east had to mean not to do so anywhere beyond the GDR.
In other discussions explicit pledges appear to have been made not to expand NATO beyond the GDR. In his memoir, the late former
Russian Foreign Minister (January 1996 – September 1998), Prime Minister (September 1998 – September 1999), and perestroika-era Politburo
and Presidential Council member Yevgenii Primakov quotes Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry archival documents from various meetings,
showing Baker, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, British Prime Minister John Major, and French President Francois Mitterand all telling
Gorbachev in February and March 1990 that former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe would not become NATO members. In addition,
British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd told Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh in March that there “were no plans” to
expand NATO beyond united Germany (Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike, pp. 231-33). Finally, in June 1991, NATO Secretary General
Manfred Worner said publicly that granting NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact members “would be a serious obstacle to reaching
mutual understanding with the Soviet Union” (TASS, June 16, 1991).” Thus, again, what seems clear is that there was at least a joint
assumption and informal agreement that NATO would not expand to the east beyond the GDR.
Many Russians, including Primakov, would later harshly criticize Gorbachev with justification (and hindsight’s advantage) for
failing to codify this in a signed agreement (Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike, p. 233). Claiming this was possible, none of them
can produce evidence they proposed this to Gorbachev or his inner circle. These were heady days of rapprochement and hopes for peace
in a ‘common European home’ from Paris to Vladivostok. Some would say they were days of naivete` soon trumped by cynicism. In memoirs
Gorbachev’s closest advisor, Georgii Shakhnazarov, lamented the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution without “achieving the liquidation of NATO.”
He added: “This is just a question of time. One should not regret the end of the military blocs. They are Europe’s yesterday. In
(Europe), security should, of course, be built on a rational, collective basis” (Georgii Shakhnazarov, Tsena Svobody: Reformatsiya
Gorbacheva glazami ego pomoshnika, Moscow, Rissika-Zevs, 1993, p. 128).
With the decision made to expand without Russia, American hubris was communicated to Moscow in no uncertain terms by Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, whom President Barack Obama dubbed “one of the giants of American foreign policy” after the
former’s passing in 2010 (Robert D. McFadden, “Strong American Voice in Diplomacy and Crisis,” New York Times,
13 December 2010). At
a Washington conference in 1997, Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Yuli Vorontsov reported how Holbrooke and other U.S. officials repeatedly
and sometimes abruptly rejected queries regarding Russia’s possible entry into NATO: “When the decision was originally floated, I
came to the State Department and had a long talk with the then assistant secretary of state, Mr. Holbrooke. I said, ‘Have you thought
about Russia while you were putting forward this idea of enlargement of NATO?’ And his answer was very honest. He said, ‘No, not
at all; you have nothing to do with that.’ ‘Aha,’ I said, ‘that is very interesting, and what about an invitation for Russia to join
the enlarged NATO?’ He said, ‘Anybody but Russia! No’. That was a nice beginning of our conversations about enlargement of NATO in
the State Department and later on in the corridors of power in Washington. And from all quarters I received that kind of answer:
‘Anyone but Russia. Not you!’” (Yuli Vorontsov, “NATO Enlargement Without Russia: A Mistake on Four Counts,” The NATO-Russian Charter
and the Emerging Relationship, Russia and NATO International Panel, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.,
February 1997.
The Implications of Promise Broken: Maximal Distrust
The increasingly cynical realism of Russian foreign policy as successive rounds of NATO expanded to Russia’s borders as well as
the hyper-cynicism of much of Putin’s foreign policy at present have their roots in Russian disenchantment that resulted from NATO
expansion. The most crucial contingent cause of the present Russo-West and Ukrainian crises was NATO expansion without the inclusion
of Russia. From its outset, post-Soviet Russia was a potential threat to its neighbors and the West, especially if not integrated
into the West. That potential, however, needed to be actualized to become an actual or kinetic threat. Potential’s actualization
was contingent on policies—whether Western or Russian—that isolated and/or alienated Russia from the West. The expansion of Western
institutions, especially NATO – world history’s most powerful military-political bloc – to Russia’s borders without Russia’s inclusion
in the bloc gradually actualized the Russian threat. Moreover, NATO expansion without Russia institutionalized and reinforced the
geopolitical and civilizational divides Mackinderians, Huntingtonians, and neo-Eurasianists on both sides of the Atlantic perceived.
There were several aspects of the 1993-95 discussion, the 1995 decision and 1997 implementation of the first round of NATO expansion
that brought Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into the military alliance which altered the Soviet-American and Russian-American
early post-Cold War honeymoon. First, the decision to expand NATO eastward broke the trust and implied if not explicit promise not
to so expand and thus take advantage of the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution. Second, the U.S. policy made no extra effort to entice Russia
into NATO commensurate with the country’s great power status. To the contrary, policymakers appear to have discouraged, if not outright
rejected Russian overtures. Third, NATO enlargement shifted the correlation of forces in Russian domestic politics from support for,
to opposition against Westernization and democratization. Fourth, NATO expansion undermined Russian national security vis-à-vis NATO.
This not only further alienated the Russian power ministries or siloviki from the West and Russia’s pro-Western leadership, it humiliated
Russia’s proud military and national security establishment. This was all the more so, since NATO’s more forward-leaning configuration
required adjustments to Russian force structure, defense procurement, and military and national security doctrines, many of which
Moscow was in no position to carry out because of the dire economic depression into which the collapse of the USSR had plunged the
country.
The idealistic and naïve Russians of the democratic perestroika generation learned a harsh lesson from the partner they
hoped for in the United States. The lone superpower, increasingly hubristic hegemon, ‘victor in the Cold War’ – the United States
– demonstrated that Russian national security, even domestic stability placed a distant second when it came not just to America’s
maintenance of its position as world leader but also to the unlimited enhancement of U.S. power globally and especially within Russia’s
traditional sphere of influence.
One can discount the promise, implied promise, assumed promise to one’s liking. But more than the spirt of statements and assurances
was broken along with the ‘promise’. The spirit of that minimal trust that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and then
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev had built up between our two countries’ elites and peoples was gravely undermined. It would be
fatally undermined with each successive round of NATO expansion.
Browder's grandfather is Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. Now
freely admitted that he held that post on the payroll of FBI and Office of Naval
Intelligence. Bill merely continues the family business of damaging Russia by any means
possible.
ugghhhh the propaganda channel – thesaker – continues unabated
"Putin single-handedly "resurrected" Russia in an amazingly short time"
just LOL @ single-handedly
" Putin turned Russia into the strongest military power on the planet and he completely reshaped the Russian perception
of themselves and of Russia"
strongest? zvezda channel posting youtube videos doesn't make you the strongest military power
completely reshaped? so much that still all the young Russians want to emigrate
"the country which created the best vaccine on the planet "
the best vaccine? only 4% of Russians got vaccinated, that's 6 million out of 144 millions
so much about Russians trusting Putin, LOL
-- -- -
Andrei Raevsky, do you even re-read what BS you write?!
you aren't fooling anyone but a handful of braindead followers you got there on your blog
in the real world – no one gives a shyt about Putin
the West doesn't hate Putin, they just want to loot Russia or get a cut from the loot of Russia.
Russian oligarchs want to loot Russia for themselves without giving a cut/tribute to Western oligarchs.
Putin is a non-issue, a nobody, he just follows orders of the Russian oligarchs.
But there is a real hate @ Putin – that because he is a fake, only a carefully prepared media
image. And you Andrei Raevsky are part of that propaganda effort. Putin is no savior, Putin
is not working for the betterment of Russians or humanity as a whole. He is just a facade for
Russian oligarchs. And that is what we hate . And the more you and the likes of you push
that fake image of Putin, the more the pushback and hate from us.
So go on – continue.
I was a believer in Putin. Then I saw the light. Now I would have no quarrel putting a bullet in
Putin's head. Analyze this!
Last week. during a visit by the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov
slapped down the EU's sanctimonious interference in Russia's internal policies.
Back in Brussels, Borrell, who was criticized by some EU hardliners for not directly rebuffing Lavrov's
talk, set down to write
a blog post in which again attacked Russia over the latest Navalny stunt:
I have just returned from a very complicated visit to Moscow, on which I had embarked to
discuss the fraught state of EU-Russia relations. They have been low for a number of years,
and deteriorated even further after recent developments linked to the poisoning, arrest,
and sentencing of Alexei Navalny as well as the related mass arrests of thousands of
demonstrators. The purpose of this mission was to express directly the EU's strong
condemnation of these events and to address, through principled diplomacy, the process of a
rapid worsening of our relationship with Russia, and to help prepare the forthcoming
European Council discussions on EU-Russia relations.
Borrell is delusional. Hardly anyone in Russia believes the nonsensical poisoning story
for which the 'west' could provide exactly zero evidence:
Only 15% in Russia believe the Navalny poisoning was the Govt trying to eliminate an
opponent, and the 15% based this opinion from Telegram and the Internet and were mostly
18-24. The rest think it was staged, a Western false flag, personal or opposition:
https://levada.ru/2020/12/24/...
The whole Navalny poisoning was obviously some secret service operation to bash Russia.
His lavish living in in a 5 bed
room luxurious apartment in Germany after he was released from hospital was paid
by the libertarian oligarch Evgeny Chichvarkin . Chichvarkin, who
lives in London, is probably an MI6 cutout. It is still not known who paid the multimillion
production costs for the
fake 'Putin palace' video. The studio renting for the video was requested by a company in
Los Angeles. Some U.S. involvement is thereby assured.
Poland and other NATO countries are now openly pressing Navalny and other traitors like
him to continue their regime change attempts:
This confrontation was predictable. There is a limit to what Russia can accept. Even after
the russophobic UK departure from the EU, the mood is the same.
Therefore a frank confrontation may either be a wake-up call for Europe that they may lose
totally Russia as a partner or in the contrary bring them more apart.
What the EU fails to realize is that without Russia , it may end up become the puppet of the
USA and the UK
Time will tell
thanks b.... you're correct borrell is delusional and a perfect representative for a
delusional europe.... i am glad lavrov said what he did.. i just wish russia would throw the
shit back at them by making a parallel with the wests treatment of assange... it really
highlights the outrageous-ness of the west at this point...
and someone on the open thread posted about mh17 and trying to access more info contained
in boxes on the rear part of the plain that might lead to a different conclusion... as i see
it mh17, skripal, navalny and etc. etc - are all frame ups to take down russia... it has
reached a level of insanity and borrell is the perfect delusional character to represent it
all here..
throw the shit back at them russia... call the west out on their endless bullshit... the
time for diplomacy is long gone and this appears to be the conclusion that russia is indeed
coming to, however slowly....
Borrell - "The strategic choices we make now will determine international power dynamics in
the 21st century, and notably whether we will advance towards more cooperative or more
polarised models, based on closed or on freer societies."
He answers his own question - the EU (and "partners") will advance towards a more
polarized international model, based on their own self-serving definitions of "closed" or
"freer" societies. This self-generated dichotomy will be used to mask the true nature of this
perceived crossroad: "they" can live with us, but "we" can't live with them.
In a video posted earlier today, 12/02/2021 Alexander Mercuoris of The Duran analysed the
reaction of Germany's politicians to Lavrov's comments.
Basically even Heiko Maas the anti-Russian foreign minister shit his pants at the though of
Russia abandoning Europe and therefore jeapordizing Germany a significant percentage of it's
energy supply.
When all is said and done, the E.U. will suffer far worse than Russia if Moscow abandons
Europe.
The technocrats know this. However the level of maturity required to overcome their hubris is
patently lacking and to re-orientate themselves idealogically will be viery difficult as can
be seen by the reaction of 70 mental retards who pose as M.E.P.s in a letter they signed
calling for Borrell's resignation and a tougher stance on Russia.
Until a few years ago, Russia did not have an alternative for purchases of many items
other than from the West. It now has China to supply most needs. When China finally solves
the problems caused by the US sanctions to semiconductor factories (it will take roughly a
decade to develop its own photolithography and design, the most critical tools of advanced
semiconductor processing), China will be able to provide everything that Russia needs except
for warm climate fruits and vegetables (maybe Turkey?). This new paradigm seems to be behind
Russia's new assertiveness. Europe should make peace with Russia before it fully tilts
towards the East.
In 1990 at the what I then thought end of Cold War there seemed an opening to the
coalescing of a northern hemisphere zone of peace - but that vision has come to nothing. What
an idiot I was! How could I ever have thought that the best of the inheritance of Western
civilization would lead in the West. The plowing, plundering, grasping, murdering and
scheming for profit psychos in the West stabbed that vision in the heart. I am sure now
another opening will not come in my lifetime - the West will make sure of that.
If I was younger I would leave the US but now can only hunker down and stay out of the way
of the juggernaut of rampaging psychos lurching from one failure to another. The only relief
from the deepest moments of despair is looking to the East and others that are building and
working together to build a new world. Obviously Russia and China, along with Iran, Cuba,
Venezuela, Syria and others. It is a strange world for me turned upside down when I even
include North Korean resistance to the US Empire of Mendacity as contributing to the building
of that new world.
the Reality is NOT quite right the way b has present it. EU together with US, Canada CAN
and WILL hurt Russia deeply if they slap severe economic sanctions on Russia's energy sector.
And Russia knows that and EU knows that Russia knows it.
The West's game is very simple: cut Russia from the Western world, by denying it access to
any type of new tech, economic loans and any type of ties with the West. (this worked quite
well with the Soviet Union, so it WILL work again) And this WILL hurt Russia deeply
economically, no question about it. And before you tell me about China and the supposed
Russia-China's ties, let me inform you that the ties are merely economic and both still don't
trust each other. The Russians are well aware of CHina's claims over Siberia. They don't
really work together, most of those ties are imaginary and dont really exist.
Putin has made several mistakes, and he is too dependent on the Rich Russian millionaires.
The threat of sanctions made him freeze when the West went after Ukraine and Putin didn't act
to save it. Russia will cry bloody tears over this in the very near future. This is only the
overture of things to come. There will be another fake false flag even in the Azov sea after
which USA will demand Russia be boycotted. Ys that will hurt EU also, but the Eu are
masochists who love getting their asses fucked by US.
Russia better get prepared and get their supply ass grease ready, they will be getting
serious ass fucking very very soon. And they wont be able to do anything about it. Good
going, Putin!
I commiserate as we're in the same boat. I watch like a hawk because forewarned is
forearmed!
/////
Published at the right moment given events is this
Strategic-Culture Editorial : "NATO's Road To Perdition With Ukraine." It omits
the Borrell incident to focus on the recent meeting between NATO secretary general Jens
Stoltenberg hosted Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shymhal at the organization's headquarters
in Brussels:
"At a joint press conference, both men were upbeat about Ukraine joining NATO. Stoltenberg
admitted that the former Soviet Republic has been eyed for membership of the alliance since
2008, a timescale which puts more recent conflict over the past nearly seven years in
perspective. He also confirmed that NATO forces have been building up their presence in the
Black Sea in coordination with Ukrainian counterparts. In recent weeks, three US warships
have been training with Ukrainian naval vessels in order to counter what Stoltenberg says is
'Russian aggression'."
So, there's much more in the stew than it appears:
"It is interesting to speculate why Stoltenberg – a former Norwegian premier and
nominal civilian head of NATO – this week appeared to give new impetus to Ukraine's
ambitions. Could it be related to the change of administration in the United States? Senior
members of the Biden administration have publicly stated during Senate hearings a willingness
to increase military support for the Kiev government in its conflict with pro-Russian
separatists in Eastern Ukraine. American and European envoys at the UN Security Council
this week reiterated strident accusations against Russia claiming that Moscow was responsible
for prolonging the conflict in Ukraine . Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia countered that
it was the Kiev regime and its Western allies who have not implemented the previously agreed
Minsk peace accord signed in 2015." [My Emphasis]
Bald-faced lies in public forums that began with Clinton/Gore have steadily escalated and
clearly aren't a product of any one administration but a continuity of the War Party's
attempt at Full Spectrum Domination that keeps slipping further away from any possibility of
occurring, thus its desperation. Yesterday, I provided this link to The Saker's latest
analysis and called it a Must Read. Within he links to several reports from Russian media
and military sources that those watching closely need to read. Yesterday, Putin met with his Security
Council ostensibly about arms control but I think the conversation went well beyond that,
although I have no confirmation.
The Solovyov-Lavrov transcript isn't complete yet, but what's there is incredible! As
Lavrov said, "Well, this is some kind of a kingdom of crooked mirrors." If what Lavrov said
of Borrell's position, we should have some pity for him being put into such an impossible
position--but then, he's well paid to do his duty.
Patrick Armstrong wrote yesterday about the consequences of the Navalny brothers' scam in
2012 against Yves Rocher:
NAVALNIY. The story continues. The theory that he's being fitted up for a treason charge
was given a boost when Zakharova said he should be called an "agent of influence" rather than
a politician. His suspended sentence for fraud was lifted and he's off to prison. Read Yves
Rocher's statement; sounds to me as if the company believes he did swindle them. The fact
that there's now a campaign against the company suggests my deduction is correct. https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2021/02/11/russian-federation-sitrep-11-february-2021/
That contains a couple of links giving more details of the case.
Armstrong also links to this tweet by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a video
showing many examples of police brutality in the West and also violence by protesters against
police in Russian (the opposite of what is shown in Western media). https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1356674233464729609
Several days ago on the 10th, I posted
this link and commented about what I deemed the notable words spoken by Lavrov on
Diplomats' Day. IMO, it's a martial pep-talk given his peroration followed by this
paragraph:
"Russia's attempts to become an independent state, to uphold its right to an independent
foreign policy and to protect international law are coming against increasingly harsh
resistance of our Western colleagues, who would like to teach 'obedience' to us. They would
like us to accept the highly questionable interpretation of common human values, an
interpretation that contradicts Russia's cultural and civilisational traditions. They would
like Russia to become a 'convenient' territory for promoting their own security, economic,
social and political interests. We can see that these are becoming ever more aggressive with
every passing day. We must actively apply our efforts, knowledge and experience, based on the
wisdom of our predecessors, to consistently promote the foreign policy course formulated by
President Vladimir Putin."
How else do you prepare your diplomatic corp for war?
If you've followed Lavrov closely for many months as I have, the change in his demeanor is
quite marked; yet as Paco notes, he still maintains his professionalism. Lavrov's perplexity
about how consensus is supposed to function was well put--we know several nations disagree
with the policy yet go along with it--WHY?--the united front undercuts your own interests. In
Putin's latest conversation with his Energy Minister, there was no mention of Nord Stream 2's
situation. Given all the sanctions and lack of pushback by the EU nations most dependent on
it, IMO Russia is willing to sacrifice it as it didn't bear all the costs and has plenty of
potential customers for its hydrocarbons. So, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Russia
stopped short of finishing, said it would fulfill its existing contracts, but no more would
be negotiated until conditions drastically change. Hardball is just that--Hardball.
Levada is
considered a [pro-]Western sociological service (there are links with Soros) in Russia
and the results of its polls, let's say, cause a certain skepticism. 15% of those who believe
in "poisoning"... I would say figures of 5-8 (maximum 10) percent look much more realistic.
It is still not known who paid the multimillion production costs for the fake 'Putin
palace' video.
Well, I would look for sources in names like
Khodorkovsky or/and Browder .
Both scammers are longtime haters of Russia.
The Kremlin later said that some media misrepresented Lavrov's remarks but essentially
confirmed his stand
According to Russian legislation, the country's foreign policy is determined directly by the
president. The Foreign Ministry is essentially just a repeater, although of course it
introduces its own peculiarities. Therefore, there is no doubt that Lavrov's words were
coordinated with (and approved by) Putin. Peskov, as usual, in his own manner, tried to
somewhat "smooth out"/"embellish" Lavrov's directness and rigidity, which, however, does not
negate the essence of the statements themselves.
Today Navalny was back in court for publicly insulting a World War II veteran. The EU will
certainly make remarks about that. But only a few days ago police in Scotland arrested
someone because he typed a mean tweet about a British veteran of that war.
Here I can only support the British, who massively stood up for the offended veteran Sir
Thomas Moore.
Citizens wrote mass appeals, statements to the police demanding to bring to justice the
degenerate who insulted the memory of the war hero.
Unfortunately, Russian society often lacks such civic initiative. Yes, the authorities
will do their job, and a piece of shit named Navalny, who slandered the war veteran, will be
punished. But besides the actions of the authorities, it would be nice to see also the
"demand of the people", you know.
And I have been following you, following Lavrov.....
The Nordstream II is a question mark. It is being finished by the Russians, with their own
ships. The Germans have also realised that their own interests are tied up there. The
"Threatening situation" (from the west) does not come from either one.
My conclusion is that EU policy is being dictated from outside , the secondary
question is "by whom". Unfortunately I suspect that the main driving force is the same one
that "enabled" Biden, Enabled the ousting of socialist candidates in many countries. (Corbyn,
and in S. America generally), and generally assume they are the top of the top.
Is this force based on "nationality" or on "interests", call them Religious nuts, Extreme
militarists OR Financial Fascists? Alternatively are they a mixture of all three***.
One explanation for Lavrov's coldness is that IF the EU was an independent representative
body (which it isn't) then certain actions to improve the lot of the populace would have been
taken. That they are not means that they lack the ability to deviate from what they have been
ordered. By way of an explanation, the Media will lie, because they cannot do otherwise
having been "bought" in some way. Lavrov has certainly changed. Because he probably knows
what is "supposed" to happen, and the EU miasma do not understand that they too will be in
the forefront of any battleground. (Since that includes me, I am not too happy about the
situation either).
Aside; *** They could be mixture of all three tendencies. ie. 9/11 had operatives from the
Saudis, Israel, and the Pentagon, with three different motivations. Religious (Saudis),
Suprematist (Israel) and monetary (Pentagon and it's "lost" trillions, and profitability by
insiders).
As the head of the Soviet intelligence service, Leonid Shebarshin, an extremely
well-informed man, once said: "The west wants only one thing from Russia -- that it does
not exist".
"One explanation for Lavrov's coldness is that IF the EU was an independent representative
body (which it isn't) then certain actions to improve the lot of the populace would have
been taken ." [My Emphasis]
Now what current ideology supports such a policy--that the lot of the masses
isn't supposed to be improved; rather, they are to have their wealth wrung out,
then be tossed aside and used as manure. Hint: It was famously announced as Trickle-down
Economics, which was lambasted as Voodoo Economics.
If you read Hudson, then you know where the power center lies within the Outlaw US Empire
and its network of vassals--The privately held Central Banks and those that control them and
many other key corporations thanks to interlocking boards of directors--the same basic cabal
that failed to assassinate FDR and oust him via a coup but succeeded with JFK, RFK, MLK, and
so many others: millions when adding in their terrorists and their Death Squads.
To rid Europe of its Central Bank, the EU would need to be disbanded. But to gain complete
sovereignty, NATO would need to die also. Currently, Europe is essentially occupied by a
force every bit as immoral as the Nazis. It's not by accident that Lavrov, Putin and others
invoke the Great Patriotic War and the events that led to it as recurring.
I would not be surprised to see Russia actually perform the deeds it's accused of, like
actually invade and subdue Ukraine. It it did so, realistically what would change? Nuland
famously gave the answer Russia would now echo--Fuck the EU. As with the Republic's Trade
Federation secretly aligning with the Sith, the EU will come to regret playing dummy to the
Outlaw US Empire as it gets barred from gaining any benefits from being in the Eurasian Bloc
and China's BRI Combo.
I don't really follow the Navalny situation anymore because as soon as I see Russia
mentioned in any Western media I assume it's an "intelligence community" psyop or just plain
old propaganda. But something piqued my curiosity regarding this alleged mansion of
Putin's.
Strategic culture provided two links to YouTube videos in their articles, one of which to
my knowledge isn't subtitled so I don't know what was being said in Russian. In this video a
group of guys made the trip to the site of this mansion compound and showed the place in
disrepair, looking like exterior had aged quite a bit.
The other is to Navalny's own video which alleges to explain that the reason for the
current state of the project is that the original design/construction were faulty and that a
serious mold problem, as well as leaking roofs, had caused them to strip out the entire
interior ostensibly to rebuild from scratch (and allegedly tossing "billions" of rubles worth
of marble and other fancy construction materials). He also says that the original photos and
video which show the place in pristine condition, were from 6 years ago before the
teardown.
Leaving aside the obvious fake photos (like the one in Moscow times which was a
photoshopped Putin swimming in his new mansion, lol) and the situation in general (i.e.,
whether Putin has anything to do with this structure at all), can anyone square this circle
for me? Is it disproven that the place was indeed built a while back and later stripped down
due to the leaking roofs and mold? If so is there a source in the English language that
explains the situation?
There is a strong whiff of desperation of the EuroCrapsters and their US masters to grab
what Russia has (resources) and thus delay own economic collapse. All these crapsters are
freezing their asses off right now whilst dreaming of profits from pillaged Russian energy.
The most precarious is the Western pension system, which with ZIRP and NIRP interest rates
has stopped existing. There is no source of funding in this World that could feed that hungry
monster with ageing population. The Western printing presses are overheating and this is only
a delaying solution for the deeply debalanced system. Absolutely the only way out for the
West is to bring down Russian government and pillage. If Russia did not have nuclear weapons
this would have happened a while ago. The Russians understand this perfectly.
Will the sick West run into a desperate confrontation against a bee with a big sting? It
must be unusually frustrating for the AngloAmerican crapsters not to be able to just take
what they want and need from the World as they have been doing over the past couple if
centuries. They have the big sting but their mark has an even bigger (hypersonic) sting. What
a profound change in world affairs - pillaging from now on to come at the huge cost. And
Putin appears prepared to prevent pillaging of not only Russia.
The calculation is fairly clear - either they will feed, cloth and keep warm the Western
elderly and others using Russian resources or there will be no pensioners after a nuclear
Holocaust. Either way problem solved.
would like to know, in concrete terms, what is the benefit from constant denigration and
provocation of Russia, and who benefits, in precisely what ways. I do know, however, who does
not benefit. The vast majority of Europeans, the Russians and generally the majority of
humanity.
-Pushing Russia around and away is counter productive for the EU and Europe as whole. It is a
big, peaceful, neighbouring country willing to cooperate on the basis of mutual respect and
interest. Russia has put foreward many constructive proposals, all of which have been
rejected
- There is no rational basis for the long-lasting and escalating pressure on Russia. If that
is correct, the goals and actions of the West, and the the EU in particular, are irrational
from the perspective of the real life interests of the majority of European citizens and
welfare and wellbeing of the majority of people in the world.
- I hope that Russia does not abandon its orientation towards Europe, because it is a
European state. It should be part of European integration projects, albeit not on the present
model of the EU. That does not clash, but accords, with its Asian relations and projects.
- The EU should radically change its policies towards Russia, and welcome it as an important
partner in all fields.
- The qeustion is - who is going to stop the race into the abys that the European leaders are
accelarating? I don't see anyone or anything on the European scene considering, capable of
and willing to put an end to this utter madness. I do see who is paying the price and who
will pay even more dearly in the future. The majority of European citizens.Deeply depressing
and very scary.
The Bulletin article doesn't really delve into the issues around the US' new low-yield
'tactical' nukes, it concentrates on a new big 'strategic' ICBM system, the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). It seems to be basically an attempt to resurrect the capabilities
of the Reagan era MX 'Peacekeeper' that was scrapped under the START treaties as it was
optimised to carry a large number of warheads and the US preferred to keep a larger number of
Minuteman III missiles with single warheads.
Although it probably won't be quite as large as the MX, it will be better suited than the
Minuteman for carrying multiple hypersonic glide vehicles like the Russian 'Avangard' system.
The Russians have an initial operating capability on their SS-19/UR-100N ICBM (similar in
payload to the Minuteman) but will soon deploy their much larger RS-28 Sarmat which will
allow multiple hypersonic gliders to be carried.
The article describes a typically corrupt US procurement process, with the big three arms
companies (Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) fighting it out for the mountain of
$. Northrop Grumman managed to win out by buying up the only manufacturer of the large solid
rocket motors that the contract required the contractors to use. Solid rocket motors were one
of the only aspects of space technologies where the US was unequivocally in the lead, with 4
or 5 companies producing them. By the time of the GBSD contract only one company remained
after the orgy of mergers and buyouts, Orbital ATK. ATK was the successor to Thiokol Corp,
whose product doomed the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger (being basically a big 'light
it and stand the f*** back' firework solid motors are not a great option for crewed
spaceflight, but well suited to ICBMs).
By buying up ATK, Northrop Grumman threatened to massively cut into the profits of any
other company bidding, ensuring a clear run to the contract for itself. Many analysts had
suspected that Boeing would be given the GBSD contract to compensate for their losses on the
737Max, but Northrop's maneuvers and Boeing's terrible recent track record in space made that
impossible. Boeings SLS moon rocket failed its crucial static-fire test in Jan 2021 and is 5
years behind schedule despite it being basically a Space Shuttle tank with Shuttle engines
bolted to the bottom (early 70s tech). Its Starliner Space Station ferry also failed its
uncrewed flight test last year due to a plethora of software errors, one of which was
discovered with minutes to spare and would have killed a crew by crashing the service module
into the crew module moments after the modules seperated for reentry into the atmosphere.
With all that in mind I don't think the Russians are too troubled by the US's prowess in
space or financial technology. Whatever Frankenstein's Rocket emerges from the GBSD program
will be most unlikely to rival the RS-28 (known to NATO as 'Son of Satan'), and by that time
the 'Grandson of Satan' will probably be flying.
The problem with armchair strategists is of course they don't know all the facts, those at
hand to the actual players. Some leaks into the real world but far too much is hidden.
All we know is that Russia appears to have stopped its subservient position and have
started with the EU, not the US. Is that because they believe they are now finally powerful
enough for a military conflict? Or perhaps as they believe one is coming anyway? Or are there
other hidden factors in play?
One thing of interest is that it hasn't taken long for the NATO/Russian situation to
escalate quickly since Trumps removal, anyone still doubt he was removed? Also of note the US
general now stating nuclear war is possible, more fear to add or just introducing the idea to
us as something that may "have" to be done to save the world for democracy?
How much does one believe in coincidence? Karmically there is no such thing. Many big
issues going on in the world now from covid with its fascist responses to Big Resets, massive
world debt, and now increasing military tension with Russia and perhaps China as well soon.
All interlinked?
Putin created a document about lessons from WW2. Even if you disagree with him or just
hate him, ask yourself if Trump, Biden, Pelosi or any other elderly US leaders could reason
at this level or offer this depth of thought. That's my take away...
The problem with Navalny is not that he is a 'traitor' to Russia but that he is an agent
of the Empire, on the payrolls of the Five Eyes security complex. Which makes him a traitor
to humanity.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
@annamaria
or wish it well – and everyone knows that.
He must know this. He must also know that his electoral prospects are nil – even if
he was allowed to compete and given access. Short of a revolution he is done, and
revolution is not coming, too soon. That is not a good place to be. He is in theory protected
by his sponsors, but that may not amount to much if things get hot. At best he would get
exchanged. Or he can quietly slip away after a few years if he is lucky.
Mulatto did his job, now mulatto can go. A single-use politician who is endlessly
promoted, celebrated, and then discarded and forgotten, only to be listed on a sad list of
names to demonise the enemy. That enemy is his own country, is that really heroism?
He is a nationalist like the Maiden. Maiden in power promoted with violence anti-Russian
hysteria. This action created a civil war since a large part of Ukraine are Russian
speakers.
Navalny, if in power, would do something similar as in Ukraine. Act as a Nationalist of
only the Russians in the Russian Federation. Get all the other peoples of the Russian
Federation to break away or stir up a civil war.
Within a few years, put in place Zion/USA puppets like Poroshenko and Zelensky. Look at
the recent Ukrainegate Impeachment trial, almost everyone supporting Ukrainegate trial was
Jewish, even the Ukrainians in this sham trial. .
This is not about bringing down Putin but about dismembering Russia and ending its
sovereignty
The easiest proxy here is the 1990s campaign against Milosevic (the campaign) as a tool to
dismember Yugoslavia
Russia is too rich, too week and is refusing to surrender, hence it will be divided
between and
Absorbed on one side by China and on the other side/s by USA and EUSA
The initial planning for disintegration of Russia was drafted in the NSC directive in
1948
West of Russia to Urals will be absorbed by EU/(Germany)
East of Russia to Yenisei will be controlled by US/(Japan)
China will take over hte greatest price – everything between Urals and Yenisei
Putin with his United Russia/One Russia Party is a major obstacle to the master plan
and
will therefore
be eliminated
whether one likes it or not
@annamaria
from his sponsors are of little use in his current situation.
I find the Western coverage of this affair absurdly propagandistic. A few things are never
mentioned:
– what was Navalny convicted off – fraud
– that he is not by any stretch of imagination the "opposition" leader – his
party has not reached even 5% required to be represented in the parliament
There is also an omission of why Russia claims "interference" – because US Embassy
published the routes for the demos. And many of the demonstrators are paid one way on
another by the West – if the situation was reversed, liberals would call for a war
(as they basically did with Trump's allegations).
What a lie. The bombs being dropped from the U.S. made jets the Saudi pilots fly over Yemen
killing civilians leaves blood all over his hands not to mention shaking the hand of the
Saudi that murdered a journalist before selling him weapons to kill Yemen's civilians.
Waryaa Moxamad 48 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 05:36 PM
1) False flag chemical attack on Syria. 2) killing Soleimani in a sovereign country he was
invited to 3) Guaido 4) Bolivia. 5) continuing the wars predecessors started.
Who is being fooled that U.S. presidency has any say in America's imperialism?
Who really pushed for General Soleimani to be killed and has the most personal and intense
vendetta against Soleimani? Mike Pompeo. Trump did not give the Pentagon and CIA all the wars
they wanted, especially in Syria. Now the Pentagon and the CIA have their puppet, Corrupt
Biden, who will do what they command him to do. I would expect in one year to see another
massive war. Where? Syria. The US mothers will cry when their sons come home in coffins. The
Hez in Lebanon will not back down, and they will enter Syria again. Trump did not want young
American boys coming back in coffins!!!!!!!
>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to
extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning
Assange.
Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered
by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he
attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.
Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand
the psychology of elite US WASPs.
These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the
cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria,
rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.
Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that
moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.
Trump obviously wants better diplomatic relations with Russia. He is reluctant to
counter its military might. He is doing his best to make it richer. Just consider the
headlines below. With all those good things Trump did for Putin, intense suspicions of
Russian influence over him is surely justified.
There followed 34 headlines and links to stories about Trump actions, from closing Russian
consulates to U.S. attacks on Russian troops, that were hostile to Russia.
In fact no other U.S. administration since the cold war has been more aggressive towards
Russia than Trump's.
But some U.S. media continue to claim that Trump's behavior towards Russia has not been
hostile at all. Consider this line
in Politico about anti-Russian hawks in the incoming Biden administration:
Nuland and Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving the Obama
administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign policy --
particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Where please has Trump 'appeased' Vladimir Putin?
Here are a number of headlines which appeared in U.S. media since we published our first
list two years ago. Which of the described actions were designed to 'appease' Putin or
Russia?
When one adds up all those actions one can only find that Trump cares more about Russia,
than about the U.S. and its NATO allies. Only with Trump being under Putin's influence,
knowingly or unwittingly, could he end up doing Russia so many favors.
Why, you certainly could view most (if not all) of those actions as favors.
People feel attacked, unite, rally around the flag. Internal problems are blamed on the
external enemy. The sanctions, the sort the West likes to impose, help develop domestic
industries. Etc. Yeah, favors.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian
émigré mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A
major difference!
Well, the logic is to destroy or ad least severely weaken Russia. Yet damn Russia is
getting stronger and stronger, hence what ever happened under Trump's watch must have been a
favor to Russia.
Competent government would look itself in the mirror and admit it is their own fault and
stupidity, but that ship sailed long time ago for US.
"If we get caught they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not
matter what you do, America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it
off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we
will create and control. Why? Because it is the will of God and America is big enough to take
the hit so we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we
hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."
Herdee 9 minutes ago remove link
This is the philosophy that both the CIA and Pompeo used on Trump in order to help destroy
him. It actually sounds like something very similar or left over from the Nazi German era
from WW2:
In an interview published by Moscow news agency Interfax on Tuesday, Deputy Justice Minister
Mikhail Galperin said that litigation over the collapsed Yukos oil empire and fallout from
Russia's 2014 reabsorption of Crimea means that "a tough year" is on the cards.
The long-running dispute over Yukos, once among Russia's leading energy firms and one of the
most valuable companies in the world, has been raging for years. However, it now appears to be
coming to a head as the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, which claims it has jurisdiction in
the case, prepares to hear an appeal from Russia's lawyers. A legal settlement of more than $50
billion, thought to be the largest in history, hangs in the balance.
"Of course, we're not sitting idly, waiting for the Supreme Court's decision," said
Galperin. "Every day, we're defending our national interests in this case in different ways.
Legal battles related to the Yukos case are taking place not only in the Netherlands, but in
other jurisdictions as well."
Those who lost money in the collapse of the Yukos empire insist that the arrest of its CEO
on fraud charges and a colossal bill in back-taxes amounted to state appropriation.
Russian authorities argue that previous rulings in foreign courts on the side of the
claimants failed to take into account Russia's anti-corruption laws, and claim that the
investors weren't "bona fide." Moscow also insists that only Russia's courts have
jurisdiction, as the Energy Charter Treaty under which the case is being brought was signed but
never ratified.
Galperin added that the country's "main legal argument is that Russia never agreed for
the case to be heard by an international court of arbitration, which means that the judges had
no mandate to consider the lawsuit Yukos ex-shareholders filed against
Russia."
Last week, one of Russia's highest judicial authorities ruled that the country should
disregard any judgement coming from overseas tribunals. They state that, while the government
of the day took steps to join the Energy Charter Treaty in 1994, they did not have the
authority to make national laws subject to international agreements, or to "challenge the
competence" of Russian courts. Therefore, the jurists conclude, adhering to the Dutch
court's demands would be "unconstitutional."
However, if the verdict goes in favor of Yukos' former shareholders, refusing to pay the
bill could have substantial repercussions for Russia, with the claimants already calling for
the confiscation of the country's assets overseas as collateral.
Galperin, however, is confident that Russia could avoid cash and property falling into the
hands of the oligarchs who have brought the case. "Since 2014," he said, "they have
made multiple unscrupulous attempts to seize not only state property, but also assets that
belong to Russian companies in Western Europe. We have successfully repelled all these
assaults."
"While we can't rule out that in 2021 YUKOS ex-shareholders will continue their legal
battle in a number of countries, I can tell you without unnecessary bravado that we are fully
prepared to fight off any attempts to seize our property in any country of the world."
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is expected to hear the case in February next year,
while simultaneous battles have also been fought in US and British courts. The row comes at a
time when tensions between Russia and the West are growing, with Moscow's diplomats arguing
that verdicts against the country have been "politically motivated." In December,
Justice Minister Konstantin Chuychenko told journalists that the case is part of a "legal
war that has been declared on Russia."
As well as the Yukos case potentially reaching a dramatic climax, Galperin expects that his
ministry will have their hands full next year with at least two other international disputes.
As early as January, the European Court of Human Rights is expected to announce a decision on a
legal fight between Moscow and Kiev over disputed Crimea. There is a further $8 billion claim
from a Ukrainian energy firm that insists it lost its assets when the peninsula was reabsorbed
into Russia. The same court will also rule on a case brought by Georgia over events in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008.
It sure looks like Biden will take over the White House one way or another, and while Trump
and his supporters might still try a few things, the political correlation of forces inside the
US ruling classes is clearly against Trump. As for the "deplorables" – they have been
neutralized by stealing the election. Which means that Russia will soon face the most rabidly
russophobic gang of messianic Neocons in history. So what can the world expect next?
The Dems are not meaningfully different from the Republicans. True, the Dems blame Russia
for everything, while the Republicans blame China. Not much of a difference here: it is all
about hate and scapegoating. And both of these factions of the oligarchic Uniparty like to
blame Iran for, well, being located in the "wrong" part of the world, the Middle-East, which
all US politicians (and not to mention their Israeli masters) want to control. As for the
Israel Lobby, it has been trying to trigger a US attack on Iran for many decades. Recent US
moves of key personnel and bombers might indicate that discussions of an attack on Iran are
still very much taking place.
I don't believe that these fundamental directions in US foreign policy will change much.
Why?
Primarily because the AngloZionist Empire and even the US as we knew them are basically
dead, which means that irrespective of who is in control of the US, the objective
means/capabilities of the Empire and the US will remain the same . In other words, when
Biden promises to show Russia how tough and mighty he will be, he will not have any more
capabilities to threaten Russia with than Trump had.
So the first thing we can expect is simply "more of the same".
Now, in the Empire of
Illusions which the United States has become, appearances matter much more than
facts . US politicians have two quasi-reflexive reactions to any problem: use violence or
throw money at it. Of course, using violence against Russia (or China and Iran) would be
extremely dangerous. So throwing money at a problem is the way chosen by the US political
elites (see here for the, rather
boring, details).
A lot of that money will also be spent on ideological nonsense like supporting trans-gender
rights in Africa, woke-awareness in the Baltic, "critical race theory" in Japan (good luck with
that!), "Holocaust studies" in Poland and the like.
What will happen next is that this money will be spread amongst a pretty large US and EU
bureaucracy (and its subcontractors) to all sorts of political PR actions aimed at presenting
modern Russia as "Putin's Mordor" whose "Nazguls" (scary GRU and/or SVR and/or FSB agents) run
around the planet looking for more targets to infect with the totally ineffective, but still
scary, "Novichok". In the past, much of that money was spent inside Russia by all sorts of
CIA-run NGOs and much of it was also spent on various propaganda efforts outside Russia. Again,
this will not change, if anything, expect even more money poured into what are in reality
strategic PSYOP operations.
The sad truth is that US politicians know very little about Russia, a country which they
hate and fear, but not a country they even begin to understand. In this case, what US
politicians will not realize is that Russia herself has changed a great deal in the past years:
many new laws and regulation (see machine translated example
here ) were adopted which, in essence, "plugged" many political "holes" in the Russian
legislation which allowed AngloZionist organizations to have a great deal of influence in
Russia. As a result of these reforms, it has become far more difficult for western run NGOs to
influence the Russian political scene.
As a direct result of these new rules, I expect that a higher ratio of money will stay
allocated to activities situated in the West and less for Russian-based activities. In plain
English, this means that more US printed money will be spent on completely useless activities.
The only people benefitting from this will be the entire class of pseudo "Russia experts" whose
only true expertise is on how to secure grant money. They will produce even more conferences
and papers which nobody will care about, but which will allow the US Neocons and their deep
state to show how "Biden is firm with Russia". The typical US cocktail of waste, mismanagement
and fraud (and let's not forget good old corruption!).
Russia's response to that will also be "more of the same": Russian politicians will continue
to express their disgust with their western "partners" (FYI – when Russians speak of
"partners" it is understood by all that they mean this only sarcastically). Foreign Minister Lavrov and one of his
deputies have recently made statements basically indicating that Russia will not seek any
(!) form of dialog with the West, because, frankly, it is pretty clear to them that this is a
total waste of time: Russia has nobody in the West to speak to: the only country with real
agency (albeit severely limited by its subordination to Israel) would be the US, all the other
countries of the West are really colonies and/or protectorates with no sovereignty at all.
What about all the many military provocations the Empire is organizing all around Russia? Do
they concern Russia leaders or not?
Well, no and yes.
In purely military terms, US/NATO military capabilities are no real threat to Russia whose
military is much smaller, but also much more capable than the western ones. Why? Simply because
building a truly powerful military has been a core strategic priority for the Kremlin who
needed a military actually capable of a) deterring the West from attacking Russia and b)
defeating the West should deterrence fail. In sharp contrast, western militaries have not been
training for real wars for decades already: most of what the US/NATO do is using western
militaries for all sorts of propaganda purposes (like "sending messages" or "showing
determination" etc.) and for counter-insurgency operations, not for fighting a real, major,
wars.
Right now the Russian military is much more modern (about 80% of new gear on average across
all military branches and services!) and much better trained for real combat operations. In
sharp contrast, the US MIC is heavy on hot air (Space Force! Hypersonic missiles! Artificial
Intelligence!) and short on any actually deployed and engageable weapon systems. Away from the
propaganda machine (aka "corporate legacy ziomedia"), the reality is that the West is about
1.5-2 decades behind Russia in most critical military technologies.
Last, but not least, wars are not won by machines, computers or fancy engineering: they are
won by soldiers, real men, who know what they are defending and why. The contrast between the
typical Russian soldier (in any service or branch of the military) and his western counterpart
could not be greater than it is today. Simply put: no western country can boast that it has
soldiers like Russia has and, again, I don't mean the "super dooper" elite Spetsnaz operators,
I am talking about your very average, garden variety, infantry soldier, like the ones who saved
Russia in the Chechen conflict in spite of operating in truly horrible and totally chaotic
circumstances. These guys might not look like much, but as soldiers they are the kind every
commander dreams about.
All this is to say that Russians have nothing to fear from all the western sabre-rattling,
except maybe one thing: the rogue officer, on either side, who would suddenly decide to open
fire (for whatever reason) thereby creating a situation which could escalate into a full-scale
war very rapidly.
The other thing which is objectively bad for Russia is the number of key treaties the US has
now withdrawn from: these treaties are most needed, especially as confidence building measures.
Right now there are very few treaties left and that means that the US is desperate to try to
suck Russia into an arms race.
This won't work.
Why?
Putin himself explained it very well when he recently said that while the West throws huge
sums of money at any problem, Russia allocates brains, not money. According to Putin, it is the
use of brains, rather than wasting money, which allowed Russia to develop all the weapon
systems mentioned by Putin for the first time in 2018. This made it possible for Russia to get
ahead by a decade or more, while using only a small fraction of the kind of money the US, and
other western countries, are allocating on "defense" (while not being threatened by anybody!).
In the competition between the US money printing press and the Russian brains, you can be sure
that the latter one will always prevail.
The bottom line is this: the US can spend many hundred billion dollars on " countering
Russian (or Chinese) influence ", but this will do absolutely nothing to help the objective
circumstances and capabilities of the Empire or the US.
So the real question is what will change on the level below direct military
confrontation.
In a recent press conference, Putin mentioned something very interesting about the outgoing
Trump administration. He said:
"The current administration introduced new sanctions against Russia 46 times –
against our legal entities and economic operators. Forty-six times – this has never
ever happened before. But at the same time, bilateral trade grew by 30 percent over the
previous year, oddly enough, even despite those restrictions."
So if the putatively pro-Russian Trump Administration sanctioned Russia 46 times, it is
normal for the Russians to look at Biden with equanimity or even a resigned fatalism: " the
West has always hated us, the West still hates us and the West will always hate us "
– this truism is all but unanimously accepted amongst Russian politicians.
Still, we can count on Biden and Harris to try to show how "tough" they are on Russia and
Putin: they will show their prowess mostly by demanding that their NATO/EU colonies and
protectorates continue "send
messages" to Russia and show their "unity" and "solidarity" with each other, mostly by
parroting self-evidently nonsensical Anglo and German propaganda. Will the bilateral trade
between Russia and the US continue to grow? Probably not as the list of corporations and
agencies the US declares to be under sanctions will only grow further. But never say never,
especially with the comprehensively hypocritical Dems
How about the kind of self-evidently ridiculous stories about Russians using (a clearly
ineffective) combat biological agent like the so-called "Novichok", trying to kill irrelevant
bloggers and failing to do so, or some variation on "animal Assad" "poisoning his own people"?
Will that nonsense also continue? Probably, mainly simply because this is something which the
Empire has demonstratively proved that it has the ability to do. So why not continue,
especially with a press corps willing to parrot even the most ridiculous nonsense.
The bottom line is this: to get a sense of what any actor could do next, one always has to
multiply intentions by capabilities. If there is one thing which the outgoing Maga
Administration has shown, is that its declared intentions and actual capabilities are not at
all commensurate: hence the long list of countries Trump threatened, but never meaningfully
attacked. "Biden" (and I use this term very loosely, meaning "Biden and his real handlers")
will inherit the very same geostrategic toolkit Trump had at his disposal for four years and
which did not make it possible for him to effectively flex muscles, not even against weak and
nearby Venezuela! We can be pretty sure that the rhetoric about Russia will get even more
hate-filled and paranoid. Petty harassment (such as arrest of nationals, closures of offices,
expulsion from various international events, etc.) will also continue, not so much because they
work, but because a lot of people depend on these for their salary.
How likely is a shooting war? In my personal opinion, not very likely at all. I think that
the folks at the Pentagon are mostly aware of the real world out there, and they probably
recognize that the US armed forces are in no condition to fight any halfway capable
opponent.
How likely is it that the US will use a protectorate like the Ukraine or Georgia to reignite
another local war? It is not impossible, especially since the US did support SBU infiltration
of terrorists into Russia. Keep in mind that the sole goal of such (a, frankly, suicidal)
attack would be to provoke Russia into a military response, not to actually achieve anything
else. The main problem here is that the regular armed forces of the Ukraine and Georgia are in
no condition to fight, and that the (US letter soup controlled) Ukrainian and Georgian special
services have already tried this many times, and so far without success, mainly because, unlike
all the western countries, Russia has the actual means to lock her borders when needed.
What about the reported plan to destabilize Russia by creating conflicts all along her
periphery?
It would take way too long for me here to describe what is taking place in each of these
countries right now, but I will offer just the following bullet points:
Southern Military District or
the 58th
Combined Arms Army in the region). Those who believe that Turkey strengthened its
position in the region simply do not understand the outcome of the recent war (especially the
very interesting drone war which showed that while Armenia could not deal with them, Russian
EW literally destroyed Turkish drones in mid-air (this also happened in Syria, by the way).
Central Asia is an inherently unstable region, mainly because these countries never succeeded
in effectively transitioning from the Soviet period to full independence. And yes, the US has
a great deal of influence in this region. But only Russia can provide effective security
guarantees to the leaders of Central Asia, they all know that. Finally, Kazakhstan plays an
important "buffer" role for Russia,
putting distance between her and her chronically unstable southern neighbors . In the Far
East, Russia and China are enjoying a long honeymoon in which their already very deep
relationship only gets deeper and their collaboration stronger (in spite of western PSYOPs
trying to scare Russians about how China wants to take Siberia, and other silly fairy tales).
Russia is now even supplying key strategic defense technologies to China. Last, but most
certainly not least, Russia has total superiority in the Arctic, where the West is many
decades behind Russia. In fact, Russia is massively expanding her capabilities (civilian and
military) in the Russian north, which will give her even more weight on our planet's very
rich north.
Now ask yourself: do you see any of that changing in the next 4 years, even assuming a
rabidly hostile Biden Administration? I sure don't.
Conclusion:
Yes, the political atmosphere between Russia and the Empire will get worse. Most of the
"action" will take place in the public media space. The quasi simultaneous collapse of the
Anglo-Zionist Empire and the United States (at least as we knew them before the election steal)
will not give much time or energy to western leaders to pursue policies which have already
failed in the past and for which they simply do not have the means.
Trump or Biden was never a meaningful choice for Russia (only the Russian court jester
Zhirinovskii thought otherwise). It's not much of a choice today either. The most likely
consequence of these collapses will be that the world will split in roughly two sections:
"Section A" which will include all the countries of the "collective West" and which will be
busy trying to survive a crisis which has only begun and "Section B": the rest of the world,
which will try hard to decouple itself from the sinking West and try to develop itself in this
rather unstable environment.
Also, many Russians remember the gerontocracy which ruled in the last years of the USSR and
they know how such gerontocracies act (make no difference if the country is ruled by a
Chernenko or a Biden – such rulers are always weak and clueless).
i remember the late 80's when ronald reagan was declared a genius for single handedly
spending the ussr into oblivion. when the reagan administration took over (with a little help
from daddy bush working a deal with the iranians to hold on to the hostages until after the
election) the national debt was $900,000,000,000. when he left office he had tripled that, a
small price to pay for taking down the evil empire, they told me. in the 90's clinton and his
best friend newt gingrich magically balanced the budget (by raiding the social security trust
fund and leaving a rubber iou behind). when the skull and bones division of the neocons
seized power the debt was $6,000,000,000,000. twenty years and several wars later we were at
$23,000,000,000,000. we are about to reach $30,000,000,000,000 after a bad flu season this
year. our military is exhausted, our equipment is so out dated and worn it isn't worth
bringing back, (if we ever leave the middle east), the russians and chinese are decades ahead
in technological terms. now tell me, who spent who into oblivion?
Russia remains vulnerable to Western efforts at political subversion. And Democrats excel
at this. Remember, it was during the presidency of Barack Obama when Putin faced toughest
challenge to his rule. I'm talking, of course, about Bolotnaya protests.
These days millions of Russian kids watch political videos, promoted by Youtube, where
they are being taught, that their country sucks and there is no hope for their lives
whatsoever unless they overthrow Putin. Russian politicians do not use the internet and
appear completely oblivious to this danger. They're a bit like Saker to be honest: obsessed
with their tank divisions and rockets, dinosaurs preparing for yesterday's war. They risk
finding themselves in Lukashenka's position.
Excellent article. Even the US Marine Corps is cutting infantry battalions to fund
"information groups". A new video addresses this anti-Russian propaganda:
Russia doesn't have the working bodies to be a world hegemon.
CCP China does.
The Russian workers (Moscow, Cyprus) I've seen were indolent compared to Chinese.
Infiltration? Even here, the CCP leaning faction is large.
China appears to be Biden's highest bidder, and largest "investor", so far
Either Trump drops the hammer before Jan 20, or we're fucked on China.
Probably so's Russia, on a longer schedule.
Warsaw Pact was canclled –but NATO grew and grew and grew after Bush stating " We
will never expand–honest" and then 911 arrived and Firechief exclaimng "We decided to
PULL IT !" but othing had struck it and of course WMD in Iraq -- –
It's improbable that there would be any direct military clash somewhere even though
there's always the possibility of a mistake leading to a crisis. The US uses color
revolutions, proxy wars, subversion, bribery, economic warfare, sanctions and varying forms
of sabotage. It's been pretty successful so far with this all over the world but Russia is
too big and self-sufficient to be forced to capitulate.
rhetoric about Russia will get even more hate-filled and paranoid
The US propaganda system always needs a boogeyman to scare the public with. Promotion of
fear is an inherent part of the American system of engineering consent.
far more difficult for western run NGOs to influence the Russian political scene.
Big tech collusion in enforcing censorship here in the US has become heavy-handed and
omnipresent. But one supposes there'll be complaints about lack of free speech in Russia.
Trump was verbally belligerent but stopped short of starting any new wars, placating the
establishment with imposing sanctions, assassinating Soleimani, etc. Biden is a stupid,
reckless incompetent who could easily stumble us into conflicts we can't handle. But then, it
would be his handlers who actually pull the strings and they seem to be as cretinous as
him.
As for the "deplorables" – they have been neutralized by stealing the
election.
Neutralized? No way José, the deplorables are mad as hornets about the stolen
election and are just getting started. And they have their Second Amendment assets, and it's
not even January 20th yet.
Do you see the 'YouTube' kids starting a revolution, storming the Kremlin, and the
'organs' watching them with arms crossed from the side? Wouldn't they rather send them to
develop the Arctic?
Unlike the 80s there is no official ideological differences except that Russia's ideology
of national sovereignty, family and strength is in assendence while the US Marxist one of
globo homo anti white hate thyself BLM is openly ridiculed by the quiet majority.
It is about the US that people openly talk about being on the verge of civil war not
Russia these days.
Most Russians know it's a fight against subjugation there is no other way, defend itself
or get eaten.
Besides under the Harris presidency in a year or two it will be white Americans who will
be told officially they suck.
These days millions of Russian kids watch political videos, promoted by Youtube, where
they are being taught, that their country sucks and there is no hope for their lives
whatsoever unless they overthrow Putin
The cleverest trick the Devil ever invented was to convince young (white) people that
Globohomo, Blacks Lives Matter and Immigration are somehow a benefit to them and that they
should fight for their own displacement
Biden has a lot of compromat and Harris is basically akin to a wigger in a black gang, who
will need to prove her devotion when she takes the reigns after Biden.
Both will be like putty in their handler's hands.
Politicians start wars to make the public look away from domestic or personal crises.
Biden already has his corruption probe, and whilst Trump made many errors, he did not fall
for the trap of starting a major foreign policy disaster for personal political gain.
Both Biden and Harris would do that in a heartbeat. So whether that would be Iran or
Ukraine, or pushing Taiwan too far, I'm pretty confident a war will start.
I always said with Trump the odd's are 80% civil war, 10% world war, 10% peace, whilst
Biden is around 50% civil war, 45% world war, 5% peace.
Nice display of your brainwashedness, from western propaganda.
You didn't follow Saker's link to the machine translated example , did you?
One would need a bit more than broad, completely unsubstantiated claims by you that
Russian kids in large numbers actually believe those YT lies and similar.
And Lukashenko isn't doing so bad, currently.
@Felix
Keverich ng "dusty, dirty" -- a term used in 2nd-millennium BCE texts throughout the
Fertile Crescent for people variously described as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries,
bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers"(Wikipedia).
The 2001 paper "Who are the Hîabiru of the Amarna Letters?" by retired professor
(Andrews University) S. Douglas Waterhouse (2001) joined a lot of dots for me. A good stumble
on, thanks, Guyénot and others who posted relevant comments etc. (A copy can be found
here: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jats/vol12/iss1/3/
)
@Carlos22
ashion. Yet that is what the US empire wants. It is hard to imagine the opportunity for
satire could be greater.
Here is some preliminary ideas
https://www.youtube.com/embed/noIWQFMskG0?feature=oembed
I also did a satire on Bellingcat called Bellingbat that examines some of the same issues. Of
course there is a fair amount of nudity involved as that is the US way when considering if
powerful females can be trusted. Unlike Lautrec I was never allowed into the ballerina's
dressing rooms even though I was a recognized well respected painter and would seek death
should I betray a slack breast or two.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Z9pggzVJ68?feature=oembed
Cheers all and have a happy new year.
"Last, but not least, wars are not won by machines, computers or fancy engineering: they
are won by soldiers, real men, who know what they are defending and why."
Azerbaijan just ate Putin's lunch by crushing Armenia's entire AA systems and their piece
by piece destruction of hundreds of T90's and all the Armenian artillery. Azerbaijan
accomplished this through Israeli military technology, likely including remote drone piloting
services.
Saker wants to pretend that it is the US that has Israel on a leash, but it is clearly the
other way around. Israel has already hoovered up all of the US electronics and military
patents and clearly any other patents that would be useful in a war, especially a war for
Eretz Israel.
Azerbaijan took out all the Armenian armor and air defenses with Israeli drones like the
Hovering Artillery Drones and Suicide drones. The amount of live film is staggering, and the
T90's were picked off like sparrows sitting on an electric wire. Some of the drones
Azerbaijan used were Turkish, but we can be certain that the technology is either licensed
from Israel or Israel's gollum the JEWSA.
Added to this complete mastery of the traditional battlespace is the complete Heeb control
over the bio-warfare space. Whether Putin allowed Russia to be circumcised while he played
along to the Rabbi's Covid rituals, or whether Putin is playing it safe and vaccinating and
closing its borders pre-emtively is irrellevant. Russia is being bullied like a lone teenage
Swedish boy at muslim majority high school in Malmo.
And of course, Russia still has a Rothschild controlled Central Bank too.
So Putin, just like Biden, is going to do exactly what his Chabad Lubbovitz Rabbi's tell
him he has to do. Both are Israel's Shabbez Bitches.
@Felix
Keverich everyone knows that the US and England hate Russia and Putin, thus whatever
these 2 countries claim about either is dismissed with a laugh. As for Skripal (where are
they now? dead?), Navalny, novichok, Assad gassing his own people ..a child can see through
this stuff. Sorry!
Young people in Russia watching US propaganda against their country you honestly think
they are going to agree with the country (USA) that has targeted them with missiles and
nuclear bombs for 70 years? Do you think we can't see the corruption and stupidity?
But I'm wasting my time here. Facts, logic, is lost on a person so naive and brainwashedas
yourself.
he's pretending to be Russian intelligent, which I doubt – not his name nor his
thoughts seem to be Russian.
He's right only in one thing – there's quite a big part of our society who think that
Putin (despite his obvious achievements) has to go. And those aren't liberasts, but patriots.
Putin is very deep in oligarchy swamp and he achieved max he could, i'm afraid.
Now he's just trying to keep the status quo.
I believe you have a serious problem. When the stork brought you, it must have dropped you
on your head. Your comment is sheer nonsense. Do you really believe the shit you have written
or do you have a vulgar desire for "replies".
You are either an idiot or an ass wash douche troll. Comment intelligently or not at all
and for heavens sake, seek medical attention for the lump on your head ( and the one inside
it as well)
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama . And while you're
studying that drama -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other
new dramas , which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
drama's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Dont be so hard on Felix the cat. He has been hiding under his mother;s bed surrounded by
rolls of toilet paper and wearing a mask since March 2020. Self imposed solitary confinement
does things to a person more so one who was retarded at birth.
Once he has his operation to remove his head from his ass his IQ should increase by 100%
.from 2 to 4 !
Patrick Armstrong spent 30 years as an analyst for the Canadian government, specializing
in first the USSR and then Russia. He was a Political Counselor in the Canadian Embassy in
Moscow from 1993 to 1996. Given the torrent of anti-Russian sentiment in the West, it's
unlikely Moscow would get a fair hearing in legal proceedings overseen by Western courts. And
recent hints suggest three decades of engagement may be coming to an end.
A Dutch court has just reversed another earlier Dutch court ruling that reversed an even
earlier Dutch court ruling. Russia had been sued by a company representing the shareholders of
erstwhile oil giant Yukos. The latest iteration, reversing the reversal and taking us back to
the original judgment, demands that Russia pay $50 billion to its shareholders. Yukos was
nationalized in the early 2000s, on the grounds of failure to pay tax arrears after the arrest
of its CEO for tax evasion.
So, what should Moscow do? It has appealed, but perhaps it should think about whether it
still wants to play the game.
Let's look at the behavior of other Dutch courts. In 2001, Slobodan Milošević
appeared at the Hague charged with crimes against humanity, genocide – the full package.
And, quite rightly, said most Westerners, because had not their media already named him the
"butcher of the Balkans" ?
In 2016, the International Court of Justice ruled that maybe he hadn't been as guilty as
first assumed. But it was too late: Milošević had died in his prison cell 10 years
before, with the trial still rolling on.
The Netherlands is also in charge of the investigation into the destruction of the MH-17
flight over Ukraine in 2014. Again, we had immediate Western news assertions that Putin and
Russia were responsible, and the personal assurance of former Secretary of State John Kerry
that US intelligence resources had watched the whole thing unfold. And it's been a fact-free
Gish gallop ever since.
After several investigations, suspiciously dependent on Ukrainian intelligence sources,
social media, and the US-government funded agency Bellingcat, with no one asking where the
"we saw it" was, the trial of four individuals began in March 2020 and has been
proceeding at the same comfortable pace as the Milošević trial.
In 2018, Ukraine, without the least suspicion of a chain of evidence, produced some parts it
claimed were from the surface-to-air missile said to have shot the plane down. The parts had
numbers, numbers can be traced, and the missile factory traced them. They were parts of a
missile shipped to an anti-aircraft unit in the west of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
in December 1986.
The judges decided that the documents were irrelevant because they "may say something
about where the missile was between [19]86 and 91, but they say nothing about where the missile
was in July 2014." Presumably, a daring raid from Donetsk to an ammo dump in Western
Ukraine had happened, which nobody noticed. So, one might ask what Russia can expect from any
trial held in the Netherlands except an interminable process until the defendant dies.
Russians might then turn their attention to the practice of the rule of law in other Western
countries today. Huawei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, is approaching her third year
of house arrest in Canada. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been in a British prison with
one of the most severe regimes for the past 18 months and is approaching the second year of his
extradition hearing. Maria Butina, convicted in 2018 of acting as an unregistered foreign agent
of Russia, was in a US prison for five months, often in solitary confinement, on very
questionable charges. Senior French executive Frédéric Pierucci arrested in 2013
and later imprisoned in a US maximum-security facility for unwittingly breaching American
bribery laws. Or the US's open-ended Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
– a federal law that, in 2017, imposed sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Or the
huge fine imposed on Russia's Gazprom energy corporation in a Polish court just last month over
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Or they might consider that Venezuela stored its national gold
reserves in London for safekeeping but can't have it back (although that judgment has recently
been reversed – for now). Or that the European Union extended its sanctions on Russia
because it couldn't prove its innocence of the latest accusation over Ukraine. Russian
observers might be forgiven if they regarded this as not rule of law but war of law –
lawfare.
Moscow has generally played the game and accepted Western court rulings and, sometimes,
they've gone its way: for example, the European Court of Human Rights' ruling of 2011 that the
case against Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky had not been politically motivated. But, given
the relentless cascade of accusations – redoubled in the past five years – perhaps
Moscow should reconsider, on the grounds that Western 'justice' will never give it a fair
shake.
Will it do so? Well, there have been some hints. At a conference of the Valdai Discussion
Club think tank last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia no longer looked to
Western Europe as an example and was not going to be its vassal. The constitution was recently
amended to make Russian law primary. These would appear to be clues that Moscow is at least
pondering the conclusion that Western courts are not an arbiter, but a weapon.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Moscow is set for a showdown with Western judges and 1990s Russian oligarchs, over a new
ruling enabling the country to refuse to pay what is considered to be the biggest legal
settlement in history, over a collapsed oil empire.
The Constitutional Court, one of Russia's highest judicial authorities, ruled on Friday that
the decision of an international tribunal in the long-running dispute over the now-dissolved
energy giant Yukos is incompatible with Russian law. The case has been heard by a court in The
Hague, which claims jurisdiction under the terms of the Energy Charter Treaty, and awarded the
company's former shareholders a $50-billion payout from the Russian government earlier this
year. Moscow claimed a win in November on the other side of the Atlantic, when a US court,
which had been hearing the case simultaneously, decided to throw it out.
However, as Russia signed but never ratified the Treaty, which hands powers to international
tribunals, the Constitutional Court has now determined it is not bound by the terms of The
Hague judgement. The ruling states that, while the country's government of the day began the
process of signing up to the pact in 1994, they did not have the authority to make national
laws inferior to international agreements, or to "challenge the competence" of Russian
courts. Therefore, the jurists conclude, adhering to the Dutch court's demands would be
"unconstitutional."
The claimants in the case are oligarchs who lost cash when Yukos, once among Europe's
largest firms, collapsed. They say that a multi-billion dollar tax bill and the arrest of its
CEO and founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on fraud charges amounted to state 'appropriation' of
its assets. However, Russian authorities insist that the shareholders cannot be considered
"legitimate," and that the Dutch judges had steamrolled over the country's laws against
corruption and fraud when ruling in their favour.
As far back as July 2014, The Hague ordered Moscow to cough up $50 billion to compensate the
plaintiffs. After exhausting the appeals process in February this year, Russia's lawyers asked
the Dutch Supreme Court to consider the case and overrule the decision. However, at the start
of December, it similarly backed the oligarchs.
Russia has insisted that the judgements are "politically motivated," and in December
the country's Justice Minister, Konstantin Chuychenko, told journalists that the case was part
of a "legal war that has been declared on Russia." He added that "Russia must
adequately defend itself and, sometimes, even attack back."
Now standing at around $50 billion, around the same ballpark as Russia's annual military
budget, the colossal settlement is thought to be the largest award in history. If the country
now rejects the bill, it would spark one of the most serious impasses in international legal
history, and leave Western states deciding whether to respect Russia's constitutional ruling,
or to enforce the demands by confiscating assets.
Yukos' former shareholders have already sought to have Western governments take control of
Russian property overseas as an insurance policy in case Moscow refuses to pay up. However, in
November, a judge in the simultaneous hearing in the US refused that request, saying that
"the Russian Federation is a sovereign country with economic tendrils that cross the globe,
not an insecure potential debtor that must be required to post security lest there be no assets
to seize at a later date."
Not all countries have taken the same approach, however, and in 2015 Russia's diplomats
slammed France and Belgium for confiscating state cash in overseas banks, and even buildings,
to be held as collateral in the case. Moscow again rejected the court's authority and said
their move was "an openly hostile act." Tim Osborne, a British lawyer representing the
former shareholders, said at the time that such seizures were necessary because Russia "has
no regard for international law or the rule of law."
At its height, Yukos produced 20 per cent of Russia's oil, placing it firmly among the ranks
of the world's most valuable enterprises. It had been formed by the privatization of former
state assets after the fall of the Soviet Union, with Khodorkovsky acquiring the assets for a
fraction of their worth at an auction that one economist, Andrey Illarionov, called "the
swindle of the century."
Khodorkovsky claims his arrest on fraud charges and the subsequent collapse of Yukos
was tied to his
political activism and his personal animosity towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin,
however, claims that the oligarch, once said to be Russia's wealthiest man, had admitted his
guilt to him privately in exchange for a pardon in 2013.
Khodorkovsky insists that he has renounced any claims to his former empire and that, should
a settlement be reached in the Yukos case, he would not stand to benefit. However, Russian
authorities are said to suspect that a number of claimants have close financial ties to the
former oil magnate.
On December 17, 2020, a new US Maritime strategy was unveiled putting into practice the
regressive concepts first outlined in the early National Defense Strategy 2020 doctrine which
target China and Russia as the primary enemies of the USA and demanding that the USA be capable
to " defeat our adversaries while we accelerate development of a modernized integrated
all-domain naval force of the future".
The Pentagon's
Advantages at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power continued by saying
"China's and Russia's revisionist approaches in the maritime environment threaten US interests,
undermine alliances and partnerships and degrade the free and open international order
moreover, China's and Russia's aggressive naval growth and modernization are eroding US
institutional advantages."
The document continued to describe that "we must operate more assertively to prevail in
day-to-day competition as we uphold the rules-based order and deter our competitors from
pursuing armed aggression ready, forward-deployed naval forces will adopt a more assertive
posture in day to day operations"
For anyone who has been paying attention to the vast growth of the Pentagon's Full Spectrum
containment policy around China's perimeter begun with Obama's Asia Pivot, it may appear as
though these words are not new, but just a continuation of American unipolar agenda, Pacific
war games, and psychological projection onto perceived enemies, that have been underway for
years. While this is certainly true, it must be noted that they are occurring at a time that
NATO 2030 has
enshrined an anti-China military posture into the Trans Atlantic security doctrine which had
formerly channeled most of its hate purely onto Russia.
The fact is those unipolar zombies programmed to think in no other terms but global
post-nation state dominance are deathly afraid of the Russia-China bond of survival which has
created a uniquely viable foundation for an alternative economic/security architecture for the
world. This model is based on a system of finance that defines money not in speculative but
rather long-term development of the real economic foundations of life. It also features a
strong emphasis on win-win cooperation as opposed to Hobbesian zero-sum logic dominant among
western powers, and it also finds itself driven by OPEN system economic practices shaped by
unbounded scientific and technological progress that once upon a time guided America's better
traditions.
With the obvious threat of nuclear war breaking out between a collapsing unipolar order in
the west and an emergent Multipolar alliance, it is important to review what possible latent
policy traditions may yet be revived within America's history which certain forces have worked
very hard to scrub out of the historical record and memory. This study will take us to the
incredible fights that arose over America's identity at the turn of the 20th century during the
period of President William McKinley and the treasonous anglophile President of vice, Theodore
Roosevelt.
Munroe Doctrine or Empire?
As
Martin Sieff eloquently laid out in his recent article , President McKinley himself was an
peacemaker, anti-imperialist of a higher order than most people realize. McKinley was also a
strong supporter of two complementary policies: 1) Internally, he was a defender of Lincoln's
"American system" of protectionism, internal improvements and black suffrage and 2) Externally,
he was a defender of the Munroe Doctrine that defined America's
anti-imperial foreign policy since 1823.
"After fifty years the United States has, without a single exception, respected the
independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own.
That the United States does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only
of her own.
That by involving itself in the internal affairs of other nations, the United States would
destroy its own reason of existence; the fundamental maxims of her policy would become, then,
no different than the empire America's revolution defeated. It would be, then, no longer the
ruler of itself, but the dictator of the world."
America's march is the march of mind, not of conquest.
Colonial establishments are engines of wrong, and that in the progress of social
improvement it will be the duty of the human family to abolish them".
It was an aging John Quincy Adams whom a young Abraham Lincoln collaborated with in ending
the imperial Mexican-American war under Wall Street stooge James Polk in 1846. When Adams died
in 1848, Lincoln picked up the torch he left behind as the London-directed "proto deep state"
of the 19th century worked to dissolve the republic from within. The foreign policy conception
laid out by Adams ensured that America's only concern was "staying out of foreign imperial
entanglements" as Washington
had earlier warned and keeping foreign imperial interests out of the Americas. The idea of
projecting power onto the weak or subduing other cultures was anathema to this genuinely
American principle.
A major battle which has been intentionally obscured from history books took place in the
wake of Lincoln's murder and the re-ascension of the City of London-backed slave power during
the decades after the Union victory of 1865. On the one hand America's role in the emerging
global family of nations was being shaped by followers of Lincoln who wished to usher in an age
of win-win cooperation. Such an anti-Darwinian system which Adams called "
a community of principle " asserted that each nation had the right to sovereign banking
controls over private finance, productive credit emissions tied to internal improvements with a
focus on continental (rail/road) development, industrial progress and full spectrum economies.
Adherents of this program included Russia's Sergei Witte and Alexander II, Germany's Otto von
Bismarck, France's Sadi Carnot, and leading figures within Japan's Meiji Restoration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/gYeVDjFKpOU
On the other hand, "eastern establishment families" of the USA more loyal to the gods of
money, hereditary institutions and the vast international empire of Britain saw America's
destiny tied to an imperial global partnership with the Mother country. These two opposing
paradigms within America have defined two opposing views of "progress", "value",
"self-interest" and "law" which have continued to shape the world over 150 years
later.
William Gilpin vs Alfred Mahan: Two Paradigms Clash
A champion of the former traditionally American outlook who rose to the international scene
was William
Gilpin (1813-1894). Gilpin hailed from a patriotic family of nation builders whose
patriarch Thomas Gilpin was a close ally of Benjamin Franklin and leading member of Franklin's
Philosophical Society. William Gilpin was famous for his advocacy of America's trans
continental railway whose construction he proselytized as early as 1845 (it was finally begun
by Lincoln during the Civil War and completed in 1869 as I outlined in my previous paper
How to Save a Dying Republic ).
In his thousands of speeches and writings, Gilpin made it known that he understood America's
destiny to be inextricably tied to the ancient civilization of China- not to impose opium as
the British and their American lackies were want to do, but to learn from and even emulate!
In 1852, Gilpin stated:
"Salvation must come to America from China, and this consists in the introduction of the
"Chinese constitution" viz. the "patriarchal democracy of the Celestial Empire". The
political life of the United States is through European influences, in a state of complete
demoralization, and the Chinese Constitution alone contains elements of regeneration. For
this reason, a railroad to the Pacific is of such vast importance, since by its means the
Chinese trade will be conducted straight across the North American continent. This trade must
bring in its train Chinese civilization. All that is usually alleged against China is mere
calumny spread purposefully, just like those calumnies which are circulated in Europe about
the United States".
With Lincoln's 1861 presidential victory, Gilpin became Lincoln's bodyguard and ensured the
president survived
his first assassination attempt en route to Washington from Illinois. During the Civil War,
Gilpin was made Colorado's first Governor where he successfully stopped the southern power from
opening up a western front during the war of secession (applying Lincoln's greenback system to
finance his army on a state level) and winning the " Battle of Glorieta Pass ", thus
saving the union.
After the war Gilpin became a leading advocate of the internationalization of the "American
system of political economy" which Lincoln applied vigorously during his short-lived
presidency. Citing the success of Lincoln's system, Gilpin said:
"No amount of argument will make America adopt old world theories To rely upon herself, to
develop her own resources, to manufacture everything that can possibly be manufactured within
her territory- this is and has been the policy of the USA from the time of Alexander Hamilton
to that of Henry Clay and thence to our own days".
Throughout his speeches Gilpin emphasizes the role of a U.S.-Russia alliance:
"It is a simple and plain proposition that Russia and the United States, each having
broad, uninhabited areas and limitless undeveloped resources, would by the expenditure of 2
or 3 hundred millions apiece for a highway of the nations threw their now waste places, add a
hundredfold to their wealth and power and influence"
And seeing in China's potential the means to re-enliven the world- including the decadent
and corrupt culture of Europe:
"In Asia a civilization resting on a basis of remote antiquity has had, indeed, a long
pause, but a certain civilization- although hitherto hermetically sealed up has continued to
exist. The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new
life and European culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms."
In opposition to the outdated British controls of "chock points" on the seas which kept the
world under the clutches of the might of London, Gilpin advocated loudly for a system of
internal improvements, rail development, and growth of the innate goodness of all cultures and
people through scientific and technological progress. Once a global system of mutual
development of rail were established, Gilpin stated "in the shipment of many kinds of raw and
manufactured goods, it will largely supersede the ocean traffic of Great Britain, in whose
hands is now carrying the trade of the world."
Gilpin's vision was most clearly laid out in his 1890 magnum opus "The Cosmopolitan Railway" which
featured designs for development corridors across all continents united by a "community of
principle".
Echoing the win-win philosophy of Xi Jinping's New Silk Road today, Gilpin stated:
"The cosmopolitan railway will make the whole world one community. It will reduce the
separate nations to families of our great nation From extended intercommunication will arise
a wider intercourse of human ideas and as the result, logical and philosophical
reciprocities, which will become the germs for innumerable new developments; for in the track
of intercommunication, enterprise and invention invariably follow and whatever facilitates
one stimulates every other agency of progress."
Mahan Derails America's Anti-Imperial Identity
Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) represented an opposing paradigm which true American
statesmen like Lincoln, Secretary of State James Blaine, William Seward, President Grant,
William Garfield, and McKinley detested. Sadly, with McKinley's murder (
run by an anarchist ring with ties to British Intelligence ) and the rise of Teddy
Roosevelt in 1901, it was not Gilpin's but rather Mahan's worldview which became the dominant
foreign policy doctrine for the next 120 years (despite a few brief respites under FDR and
JFK).
Mahan is commonly credited for being a co-founder of modern geopolitics and an inspiration
for Halford Mackinder. Having graduated from West Point's naval academy in 1859, Mahan soon
became renowned as a total failure in actual combat having crashed warships repeatedly into
moving and stationary objects during the Civil War. Since reality was not his forte, Mahan
focused his post-war career on Ivory tower theorizing gushing over maps of the world and
fawning over Britain's power as a force of world history.
His "Influence of Sea Power
Upon History 1660-1783 published in the same year that Gilpin published his Cosmopolitan
Railway (1890) was a total break from the spirit of win-win cooperation that defined America's
foreign policy. According to
the Diplomat , this book soon "became the bible for many navies around the world" with the
Kaiser of Germany (now released from the influence of the great rail-loving statesman Otto von
Bismarck whom he fired in 1890) demanding all of his offers read. Later Teddy Roosevelt ordered
copies for every member of Congress. In Mahan's book, the geopolitician continuously asserts
his belief that it is America's destiny to succeed the British Empire.
Taking the British imperial definition of "commerce" which uses free trade as a cover for
the military dominance of weak nations (open borders and turning off protectionism simply makes
a people easier to rob), Mahan attempts to argue that America need not continue to adhere to
"outdated" habits like the Munroe doctrine since the new order of world empires demands America
stay relevant in a world of sea power and empire. Mahan writes : "The advance of Russia in
Asia, in the division of Africa, in the colonial ambitions of France and in the British idea of
Imperial Federation, now fast assuming concrete shape in practical combined action in South
Africa" demands that the USA act accordingly.
Attempting to refute the "outdated habits" of rail development which consume so many foolish
statesmen around the globe, Mahan states: "a railway competes in vain with a river because more
facile and copious, water traffic is for equal distances much cheaper and because cheaper, more
useful". Like those attacking today's Belt and Road Initiative, the power of railways is that
their returns are not measurable by simple monetary terms, but are rather QUALITATIVE. The
long-term construction of rail systems not only unite divided people, increase manufacturing
and industrial corridors but also induce closer powers of association and interchange between
agriculture and urban producers. These processes uplift national productive powers building
full spectrum economies and also a culture's capacity for creative thought.
The attempt made to justify sea traffic merely because "larger amounts of goods can be
shipped" is purely quantitative and monetaristic sophistry devoid of any science of real
value.
While Gilpin celebrates the successful awakening of China and other great nations of the
world, in the
Problem of Asia (1901) Mahan says:
"It is scarcely desirable that so vast a proportion of mankind as the Chinese constitute
should be animated by but one spirit". Should China "burst her barriers eastward, it would be
impossible to exaggerate the momentous issues dependant upon a firm hold of the Hawaiian
islands by a great civilized maritime power."
Mahan's adherence to social Darwinism is present throughout his works as he defines the
political differences of the 3 primary branches of humanity (Teutonic, Slavic and Asiatic) as
purely rooted in the intrinsic inferiority or superiority of their race saying: "There are
well recognized racial divergencies which find concrete expression in differences equally
marked of political institution, of social progress and of individual development. These
differences are deep seated in the racial constitution and partly the result of the
environment". Mahan goes onto restate his belief that unlike the superior Teutonics "the
Oriental, whether national or individual does not change" and "the East does not
progress".
Calling China a carcass to be devoured by an American eagle, Mahan writes: "If life departs,
a carcass can be utilized only by dissection or for food; the gathering to it of the eagles is
a natural law, of which it is bootless to complain the onward movement of the world has to be
accepted as a fact."
Championing an Anglo American alliance needed to subdue and "civilize" China as part of the
post-Boxer Rebellion, Mahan says " of all the nations we shall meet in the East, Great Britain
is the one with which we have by far the most in common in the nature of our interests there
and in our standards of law and justice".
In case there was any doubt in the minds of Mahan's readers as to the MEANS which America
should assert its dominance onto China, Mahan makes clear his belief that progress is caused by
1) force and 2) war:
"That such a process should be underlain by force on the part of outside influences, force
of opposition among the latter themselves [speaking of the colonial European monarchies
racing to carve up China in 1901 -ed] may be regrettable, but it is only a repetition of all
history Every step forward in the march that has opened in China to trade has been gained by
pressure; the most important have been the result of actual war."
A Last Anti-Imperial Push
The chaos induced by the anti-foreigner Boxer Rebellion of 1899 which spread quickly across
China resulted a heated battle between imperial and anti-imperial forces in both Russia and the
USA. Where Transport Minister Sergei Witte who spearheaded the development of the Trans
Siberian rail line (1890-1905) tried to avoid military entanglement, McKinley was busy doing
the same.
The boxers soon attacked the Manchurian rail connecting Russia to China by land and Witte
succumbed to pressure to finally send in troops. The reformers of China who attempted to
modernize with American and Russian assistance under Emperor Kuang Hsu and Li Hung Chang fell
from power as total anarchy reigned. The outcome of the Boxer chaos involved the imperial
powers of France, Germany and England demanding immense financial reparations, ownership of
Chinese territory and mass executions of the Boxers.
While McKinley is often blamed for America's imperial turn, the reality is just the
opposite.
The Spanish-American war begun in 1898 was actually launched unilaterally by Anglophilic
racist Theodore Roosevelt who used the 4 hour window he had while Undersecretary of the Navy
(while the actual Secretary was out of Washington) to send orders to Captain Dewey of the
Pacific fleet to engage in a fight with the Spanish over their Philippine territories. McKinley
had resisted the war hawks until that point but found himself finally bending to the momentum.
In China, McKinley, like Witte worked desperately to reject taking territory resulting in great
fears from the British oligarchy that a U.S.-Russia alliance led by McKinley and Witte was
immanent.
The assassination of McKinley on September 18, 1901 catapulted Mahan-loving Vice President
Teddy Roosevelt into high office, who enmeshed America into a new epoch of Anglo-American
imperialism abroad, a growth of eugenics and segregation at home and the creation of an
independent police
state agency called the FBI .
"Roosevelt devoted his next eight years in the presidency and the rest of his life to
integrating the United States and the British Empire into a seamless web of racial
imperialist oppression that dominated Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and that
destroyed the cultural history and heritage of the Native North American nations."
In Russia, the 1902 Anglo-Japan Treaty led to the disastrous Japan-Russo war of 1905 which
devastated the Russian navy, ended the political career of Sergei Witte and threw Russia into
chaos leading to the fall of the Romanovs (Czar Nicholas II was the last statesman occupying
high office that this author is aware of to have actively promoted the Bering Strait Tunnel
rail connection in 1906 . It wasn't
until FDR's Vice President Henry Wallace met with Foreign Minister Molotov in 1942 that the
idea resurfaced once more ).
In his Two Peoples One Friendship , Wallace described his discussions with Foreign Minister
Molotov in 1942 saying:
" Of all nations, Russia has the most powerful combination of a rapidly increasing
population, great natural resources and immediate expansion in technological skills. Siberia
and China will furnish the greatest frontier of tomorrow When Molotov [Russia's Foreign
Minister] was in Washington in the spring of 1942 I spoke to him about the combined highway
and airway which I hope someday will link Chicago and Moscow via Canada, Alaska and Siberia.
Molotov, after observing that no one nation could do this job by itself, said that he and I
would live to see the day of its accomplishment. It would mean much to the peace of the
future if there could be some tangible link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our
own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East."
While the "open door" rape of the China was attempted by the Anglo-Americans, a fortunate
rear guard maneuver orchestrated by another follower of Abraham Lincoln named Sun Yat-sen
resulted in a surprise overthrow of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 and the institution of the
Republic of China with Sun Yat-sen as the acting President. While Sun Yat-sen sided with Gilpin
and Lincoln in opposition to the Mahanists on the issue of rail and industrial development
(illustrated in his extraordinary 1920 International Development of China
program which called for 160 000 km of rail, water diversion projects, ports and 1.5
million km of paved roads- illustrated below), the intrigues that sank the world into World War
I made any hopes of this early development of China impossible in Sun Yat-sen's lifetime.
Expressing his own deep understanding of these top down tactics of world history (and the
recognition that the same British imperial forces that orchestrated the US Civil War were
planning to do the same to China), Sun Yat-sen wrote in 1912:
"We understand too well that there are certain men of power -- not to include for the
present, certain nations -- who would view with a greater or lesser satisfaction an internal
rupture in the new Republic [of China]. They would welcome, as a move toward the
accomplishment of their own ends and designs, a civil war between the provinces of the North
and the South; just as, 50 years ago, there was applause in secret (in certain quarters) over
the terrible civil strife in the United States.
Americans of today who were alive in those dark days of the great republic will remember
the feelings in the hearts of the people -- the bitter and painful thoughts that arose from
the knowledge that foreigners were hoping and praying for the destruction of the American
Union.
Had the war been successful from the South's standpoint, and had two separate republics
been established, is it not likely that perhaps half a dozen or more weak nations would have
eventually been established? I believe that such would have been the result; and I further
believe that with the one great nation divided politically and commercially, outsiders would
have stepped in sooner or later and made of America their own. I do not believe that I am
stating this too forcibly. If so, I have not read history nor studied men and nations
intelligently.
And I feel that we have such enemies abroad as the American republic had; and that at
certain capitals the most welcome announcement that would be made would be that of a
rebellion in China against the constituted authorities.
This is a hard statement to make; but I believe in speaking the truth so that all the
world may know and recognize it."
Today's Belt and Road Initiative , and strategic friendship established between Russia and
China has re-awoken the forgotten vision of William Gilpin for a world of cooperating sovereign
nation states. Does the USA have the moral ability to avoid disintegration by accepting a
Russia-U.S.-China alliance needed to revive McKinley's American System or will we slip into a
new Great Reset and World War?
Since when has USA needed evidence? They blamed Saddam for years that he had "weapons of
mass distraction". And back in 1990, they created the famous "Iraq solders took babies out fo
incubators " lies. Some of us have lived longer than 30 years and we remember all the lies
USA has said.
All part of the plan to cut Russia from the SWIFT in 2021. Once Biden becomes a president,
he will call on all "democracies" to stand up to Russia. He and other "Western democracies"
will hold a joint meeting sometime in 2021 where they will "condemn Russia for all the malign
things Russia has done" and will press Belgium to cut Russia fro the SWIFT.
Whats wore, instead of doing anything, Russia is just sitting and watching them instead of
warming Europe that this will mean Europe will freeze their collective asses next winter when
they won't be able to get Russia gas. Even Iran is warning Russia that they will be cut off
from the SWIFT...
I have to agree with you, the deep state just cannot get over losing Russia to Putin and
nationalism after the thought that they had turned it into their playground in the 1990s.
They are hot to trot to take out Russia and make it bend the knee, whatever the risks are.
Would not put it past them to pull the SWIFT option, although that would have huge
implications for the Europeans who buy so much oil and gas from Russia.
It could end up as an own goal, as the Europeans join the Russian payments network and
start paying in Euros convertible directly into Rubles (especially with Nordstream 2 in
place). The Indians and Chinese are already setup for payments in local currencies. Right now
China needs Russia as an ally, so they would also probably re-source oil imports to take more
from Russia.
Russia has already made itself self sufficient in food etc., and has been working on
payments in local currencies. They are not stupid, and see such a move coming.
ByFyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs,
chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director
of the Valdai International Discussion Club. This Monday marked 50 years since one of the
20th century's most iconic moments, when German Chancellor Willy Brandt fell to his knees in
Warsaw, emotionally apologizing for the horrors the Nazis had unleashed on Eastern Europe.
It was one of the milestones of the Neue Ostpolitik – Bonn's policy aimed at
normalizing relations with the USSR and its East European satellites. On the day of this
anniversary, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas wrote the following: "Unlike Brandt, we no
longer have to go via Moscow to talk to our eastern neighbors nowadays. Many partners in
Eastern and Central Europe now view Russia very critically – and German foreign policy
must take our neighbors' concerns seriously. In addition to offers of dialogue, clear German
positions vis-à-vis Moscow are therefore important for maintaining trust in Eastern
Europe."
A clear testimony to the fact that, compared to other Eastern European states, Russia is now
of secondary importance to Berlin. This is perhaps the first time it's been stated so
explicitly.
A day later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made several important statements about
relations between Russia and the EU, including the EU's locomotive, Germany. At the annual
meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Lavrov pointed out that "apparently,
the European Union has given up any attempts to become one of the centers in the emerging
multipolar world order and is now simply taking its cues from the US. Germany's policy on a
number of issues tells us that this is the course Berlin has chosen, as it reaffirms its
intention to preserve Germany's undisputed leadership within the EU. France's position is
somewhat different. The prevailing notion is that the European Union is now giving up any
ambitions of becoming a center of power in a multipolar world. And if France itself decides to
compete for this role well, we'll see how it goes."
Lavrov also mentioned the concept of a "sham multiculturalism that the Germans and the
French concocted," which they "are promoting, presenting the EU's policies and
initiatives to the world as beyond reproach, a shining example for everyone to see."
Right after that, Russia's top diplomat headed to a meeting with members of the Alternative
for Germany parliamentary party. Lavrov sent a clear message, basically saying that this visit
was his response to the political steps taken by official Berlin. "As for us, we don't have
any objections when German politicians communicate with the Russian opposition, and we never
get in the way of such contacts. Interestingly, Berlin officials prefer meetings with
opposition activists who work outside the system and do not represent parliamentary parties
" Obviously, a nod to the red carpet welcome that Alexey Navalny, a comparatively marginal
opposition figure back home, received in Germany.
While the meeting with a right-wing German party was more of a symbolic gesture, the Foreign
Minister's statement about the EU giving up its independent voice and Germany being the main
driver in this process reflected Moscow's official stance. The Kremlin has decided that it no
longer has any special relations with Berlin.
There is little hope that this connection will be restored in the foreseeable future, since
Angela Merkel's potential successors are even less likely to promote these special ties. The
Navalny case was just the last straw, with the Kremlin astonished by the irrational nature of
Berlin's actions.
Viewed from Russia, it seemed absolutely unnecessary to go against the pragmatic interests
that both countries seemed to have shared in the past. However, the Moscow-Berlin axis, once
viewed as something special, began to deteriorate a long time ago. Now it's over, along with
Russia's dreams about continental Europe changing its allegiances in the new world order and
moving away from its Transatlantic identity towards a more independent role.
And Germany has become the main obstacle for this hypothetical emancipation. That's why
France was mentioned, although the remark was also somewhat sarcastic.
Two months ago, Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was prepared to suspend its dialogue with the
EU, because it wasn't yielding any results. But he was talking about European institutions, not
the continent itself. Now relations with separate European countries are being revised, based
on their stance towards Russia and their role within the European Union. This concludes a very
important phase in Russia's foreign policy that began after the collapse of the Soviet Union
(or, to some degree, even before that) and signifies a transition to a different, probably a
lot less Eurocentric, approach.
The dialogue between Russia and the West, with Germany being a major participant, has now
reached a dead end – there is nothing of substance left to discuss. All the talk about
common values, which has been a focal point ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has
accomplished nothing. Back then it was believed that the whole of Europe, including Russia, was
a space of shared values that rested on the foundation of Western liberalism.
Since the 1990s, Russia has been publicly accused of departing from these values, which was
interpreted as evidence that Russia is, overall, unprepared for meaningful cooperation with the
rest of Europe. There are various assessments of the changes Russian politics has undergone in
this period, but it is apparent that it has moved away from the ideological commitments of 30
years ago. And Russia will not go back to them: not just because its own evolution as a state
has made this impossible, but because the old value system is growing obsolete and is no longer
perceived as universal.
The world has entered a new era, where pluralism of morals and values is becoming the new
normal, no matter how the European Union feels about it. International relations can no longer
be based on countries demanding their partners to conform to a certain set of values.
In this respect, Russia would gladly return to the time when internal political mechanisms
of individual states were not brought up as talking points in negotiations with their foreign
partners. Ideally, Russia would want to go back to the start of the Ostpolitik era – the
first half of the 1970s, before the Helsinki Accords and its "third basket" provisions,
which made respecting human rights and freedoms an integral part of all international
discussions. Back then, it was unthinkable for an expensive and strategically important
project, such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to be jeopardized because of the personal history
of a single political figure – no matter how well regarded he is by Western
leaders.
For 30 years after the end of the Cold War, relations between Russia and the West have been
determined (to a lesser and lesser extent with every passing year) by the principles
established during the confrontation period – principles that were to be transformed into
a new form of international cooperation. However, this project has been abandoned, as have been
all attempts to adapt international institutions created in the second half of the 20th century
to the realities of the 21st century.
Stability and cooperation in the late Cold War period were dictated primarily by the need to
strengthen global security and prevent open confrontation. This was perceived as an absolute
priority. Today, Russia and the West no longer attach such importance to their relations
(although the perception persisted for a time, on both sides, even after the Cold War).
The EU is now busy dealing with its own issues. The United States also has problems to tend
to at home, on top of its efforts to contain China. Thus, Russia needs to redefine its
priorities and work out a proper new model of international relations – one that would
have Asia at the center and China as Russia's new key partner.
Simplified, the model of Russian-German relations in 2020 looks like this: Germany, as the
de-facto leader of the EU, no longer views promoting the 'European model' eastward as a
priority. And Russia, which had long viewed its relationship with Western Europe as
intrinsically valuable, has ceased to do so and is seeking closer cooperation with the nations
of Asia.
So, the specific circumstances that brought about the current crisis are just the trigger,
not the underlying causes of the change. Russia and the West are growing increasingly apart in
terms of their priorities. This is happening for objective reasons, but is also compounded by
subjective perceptions.
All of this does not mean, however, that the trend cannot be reversed. Russia, as the
largest country in Eurasia and a bearer of European culture, and Germany, as the strongest
European economy and a country that will have to redefine its identity in the coming years,
will have need of each other again, some day. But this cannot happen until a new world order is
fully formed – one that has little in common with the ways of the last century. The
notion of Ostpolitik was an integral part of the old model, and as one faded away into the
past, the other followed.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Annoying Russians with a destroyer 10 miles or so from Vladivostok under good old Trump.
Apparently, after a series of moves that replaced some top figures in Pentagon. The
relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nulandia, or
whatever we see on the top of that iceberg -- and try to make a search what it would take to
change the course of an iceberg from Antarctics (people were investigating it as a way of
bringing fresh water to Arabian peninsula where money is plentiful but water is scarce).
There are two important aspects there. Local trade is more profitable than distant trade
when consider in totality, i.e. including the products that you would never make profit after
crossing oceans. Second aspect is that Far East is a cultural zone like Europe -- lots of
animosities collected over centuries, but even more commonalities in culture. As USA imposes
various types of tribute on allies/vassals, centripetal forces in various continents should
increase. Among visible costs of vassaldom:
1. paying costs of American presence
2. annoying China beyond the national needs, thus decreasing the national security
3. participating in sanctions imposed by USA, directly and indirectly (through resulting
conflicts) reducing profits in economies that are struggling
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
"What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal," Jeffrey said.
" ... even as he praises the president's support of what he describes as a successful
"realpolitik" approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior
leaders about troop levels in Syria.
"We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we
had there," Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is "a
lot more than" the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
Defense One
-------------
"We?" Who are "We?"
State Department people? Well, certainly some of those were involved.
But ... IMO it would not have been possible to deceive or mislead the WH and specifically
the Commander in Chief without the active cooperation of CENTCOM, the JCS and OSD.
If they had not been participating in the lying, it would have been obvious in any number of
interactions with President Trump that the president's understanding of troop numbers in Syria
was not correct and that he was being deceived by "we." (whoever that was). That revelation
evidently did not happen. The NSC staff should have detected the lack of truth in reported
numbers. That it did not tells me that at least some of the NSC staff were disloyal to Trump.
Obvious? Yes, but that is worth re-stating.
James Jeffrey is quite proud of his achievement in maintaining a "realpolik" stalemate in
Syria, one that stymies both Russia and the Syrian government.
IMO opinion he is revealed by his own words as a treacherous back stabber. "Un hombre
sin honor." pl
This is exactly the result of Trump's lack of interest in fulfilling his original promise
of ending the "forever wars" in the middle east. This is exactly the result of putting
opelny-Democrat Jared Kushner (a lifelong member of Chabad-Lubavich network) and his ilk in
charge of the middle east geopolitics.
It also clearly proves that the State Dep. is a monsterous autonomous entity with its own
permanent objectives and agendas, independent of the WH. No matter what Trump wanted to
achieve in the ME, the so-called Blob (or as Col. Lang here has coined as the "BORG") do what
they will. You have to also remember that back in '17, career diplomats and high-ranking
State Dep. officials sounded the alarm that Rex Tillerson was down-sizing the Department so
much and that it was contrary to American interests abroad etc...fast forward to today, it
would not have mattered how much down-sizing Tillerson actually managed to do, they (people
like Jeffries) were still able to pursue their own agenda and undermine Trump's original
promise of ending the forever wars in the middle east.
The liberal elites managed to 'allegedly' manipulate the election against a sitting
president in favor of an highly unappealing candidate in Joe Biden. In all honesty, does
anyone think the Blob/Borg would NOT undermine the president's agenda and follow their own
permanent objectives aboard?
Trump should be furious about this. He should be firing everyone involved in the
deception. Those involved don't belong in ANY administration. Was convincing Trump that he
was getting the Syrian oil part of this despicable con? As you mentioned last night, this
deception is probably also going on in Afghanistan. This is a clear sign of a totally
dysfunctional nation security apparatus... Trump's national security apparatus. Could Trump
find no one he could trust to carry out his orders? Or did he just not even care? He
certainly wasn't up to the task.
However, our troop level in Syria has been widely and openly reported to be above the 200
level since Trump's initial announcement of a total pull out in December 2018. I thought it
was odd when shortly after that it was announced that more troops were being sent in to
facilitate the withdrawal of the 2,000 plus troops already there. We did reduce the level
somewhat, but then we brought in mech infantry with their Bradleys to secure the oil fields
and later more to counter the Russian patrols in northeast Syria. And isn't counting whatever
we have in Tanf.
"He should be firing everyone involved in the deception"
He just fired Esper. "Trump's national security apparatus." You mean America's natonal
security apparatus, the one that gave us LTC Vindman and that crew of Ambassadors, and the
'whistlebolower' Chief Justice Robert's wouldn't let any senator name nor ask questions about
during the impeachment. You remember all that don't you? I'm sure the same cast of characters
Biden would bring back if he succeeds in the rigged election would never do that to him.
COL(R) Mark Mitchell stated the following recently, regarding the duties and
responsibilities of the SECDEF in response to POTUS directives. The comments were in regard
to Acting SECDEF Miller (a longtime friend and colleague of Mitchell), but apply to any
Cabinet or sub-Cabinet post:
"He [POTUS] may make decisions that other people disagree with. They have two options:
they can do what he directs them to do, or after they've offered their advice, if they find
it illegal, immoral, unethical, unadvisable, they can step down," retired Col. Mark Mitchell,
who most recently served in the Pentagon as the principal deputy assistant defense secretary
for special operations/low-intensity conflict.
Mitchell added that he resented the implication at the defense secretary should be
expected to stand up to the president, or in his way, as the duly elected commander in
chief.
"You either carry out your lawful orders or you resign," he said. "We don't get the option
to 'stand up to him.' "(End of quote)
Unfortunately, President Trump made many poor personnel decisions, and selected people who
believed they had the duty and right to work against the President from within the
Administration. This has driven me nuts for the last four years, as I have watched senior
civilian and uniformed leaders actively undermining the Commander-in-Chief. They weren't
subtle about it. For whatever reason, they mostly got away with it.
To be clear, I am not writing this as a Trump supporter. As a career military
professional, I have a duty to support the Commander-in-Chief, and obey lawful orders from
the Commander-in-Chief.
It is very easy to play shell games with the BOG caps in the war zones.
Looking forward to a reprise of Trump's former starring role in The Apprentice, and
finally uttering yet again his immortal words: You're Fired!
The final days of Trump's first term are going to be awesome. Banish the Borg. BAMN. Put
Biden's fingerprints on any re-hiring.
Typically a new CEO will ask for everyone's resignation, and select and cull according to
new needs and new directions. Something Trump should have done, but he too was the apprentice
in this office when his term began.
Nothing to stop Trump from doing this now in reverse, and finally cleaning out the dross
that was dedicated to his administration's destruction. Better late than never. Our country
deserves nothing less. These insider traitors deserve to have their termination for cause
permanently be part in their career resumes.
It appears that POTUS Trump once his re-election is affirmed, urgently needs to fire a
large percentage of top-level ranks at the Pentagon, fire the CENTCOM CC and his staff, fire
the JCS, close down the NSC until it's thoroughly bleached, and charge all of them under the
UCMJ. Bust them down to slick-sleeves and show them the door. How many back-stabbing Vindman
types remain within the NSC? They need to be fired and prosecuted under the UCMJ as well.
As a citizen I am having great difficulty not concluding that the US is showing all the
signs of decline like the late Roman Republic.
James Jeffrey along with the rest of the herd that have run one agitprop disinformation
scheme after another since the 2016 election are like the roman senators that had the intent
to save the Republic but fatally weakened it by killing Caesar at its very center, in the
Senate.
Biden's people are openly calling for even more internet censorship and continuing to rush
out inherently dangerous mRNA vaccines without proper testing - and may force us to take it.
Groups are starting to create a database of Trump supporters to enable censoring them where
they work and live - what is this other than terrorism against half the voting population? If
just five percent of the 70M that voted for Trump moves together in resistance then the new
regime herd will be holding a tiger by is tail and with the election showing the people are
split right down the middle I fail to see how we can avoid even much worse chaos the next
four years. The American Republic is disintegrating while the herd is having a romp and
thinks it is winning while they are its assassins.
I am sick at heart of this and fear for the future of my children whose standard of living
opportunities are in free-fall.
We are shocked, SHOCKED! that military bureaucrats are acting in the same ways that they
always have. Come on now. The job of president is to get all these people to work in concert
to an extent adequate for getting things to come out mostly in our favor. None of this is
unique to Trump. Nearly every president in my lifetime has had to learn to deal with these
aspects of the military. Jimmy Carter trusted them to plan a rescue mission. They used navy
pilots for a mission over the desert! With no extra to enable adaptation to events! Ronald
Reagan sent a battleship to Lebanon and then found out the brass wouldn't take the risk of
actually using it for anything. Not to mention the superbly uncoordinated near simultaneous
invasion of Grenada. John Kennedy accepted a duplicitous projection of events for the bay of
pigs. Bill Clinton got caught in Somalia. George W. got sucked into a strategically unplanned
invasion of Iraq. Obama was told that an 18-month escalation would resolve Afghanistan. He
believed it! Boy were they shocked when he actually enforced the deadline. This is not a
criticism of any of those presidents. It is normal, however bizarre that may sound. My point
is that they mostly get bit once and learn not to trust the military's own estimates of what
they can or should do. Then they begin to do the job more adequately. They learn to pay
attention to goals and to manage their resources. Trump does not seem capable of this kind of
learning. The last months of an administration are not the time to suddenly discover the
nature of the organizations you are leading. And in any case, there is no time left for
learning how to get actual results.
JFK never should have unionized the government workforce.
Pits existential self-interests against patriotic national interest, should these
interests become in conflict. FDR warned against doing this. More attention needs to be paid
to this fundamental national turning point.
What ills were cured by this act (EO) and has the cure become worse than the perceived
disease. Must like term limits in California - the cure was 100 times worse than the original
disease.
Entrenched political personalities come and go; entrenched and corrupted political systems
are forever, because in the process they learned to self-perpetuate.
Name your favorite EO to strike down with an counter-mand EO, before a sitting president
leaves office:
1. Anchor baby citizenship triggering chain migration
2. Unionized government workforce
1. Use Democrat's standard politics of personal destruction to attack and harass any Trump
appointments; make working for the Trump administration so undesirable none dare even ask for
consideration.
2. Tie up the President's time with endless personal attacks, lies and investigations, so
Trump has no time as elected Chief Executive to oversee and clean up valid government
operations;
3. Take advantage of Trump's exclusively private sector experience to lull Trump into
thinking entrenched government BORGs are loyal government employees, who serve only to help
Trump carry out his Executive Office duties;
4. Leak like crazy; make things up if necessary that ensure the Trump administration
narrative appears chaotic and dysfunctional. Claim anonymous sources that undermine positive
functioning within Trump administration. Make everyone suspicious of everyone else.
5. Obliterate any recognition for the remarkable Trump administration accomplishments that
occurred, regardless of all of the above.
6. Pout relentlessly because regardless of the above, the President and the GOP Senate
appointed over 200 new federal judge and 3 new SCOTUS members.
7. In full public view, tear up the SOTU address listing remarkable administration
accomplishments mouthing - these are all lies -- laying down the gauntlet for all out
war.
8. Gin up pandemic hysteria to fill in any and all loopholes not yet covered by all of the
above.
Democrat skullduggery may have effectively destroyed an temporal administration, but Trump
Judiciary appointments are the equivalent of a very welcomed forever.
President Trump, you are missed already. But I suspect in short order it is you, who will
not miss the office. You are enshrined forever - #45 as President of the United States of
America. History will treat you far kinder than your current fellow citizens.
You broke up the Democrat plantation. You exposed the dark underbelly of the body politic.
Mission accomplished. There is no going back.
this sounds like the definition of a traitor to me - jeffery.... on the other hand one
could say he is working for wall st and the mil complex and has done a good job... which is
it??
I don't understand this. Trump is the Commander in Chief, at any time he could have asked
a straight-up question: How. Many. Troops. Do. We. Still. Have. In. Syria?
I find it astonishing that the military leadership would tell a lie to their Commander in
Chief when the question itself leaves no wriggle-room.
Heck, Trump could has asked for a list of every single one of those brave 200 boys, and
even if it included Name, Rank, and Serial Number that would still fit on a single
letter-sized printout.
I can't understand how Jeffrey's and his band of "we's" could get away with this unless
Trump wasn't paying any attention at all.
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
I would also add Bolton to complete the list of crazy-hawk Trump appointees.
While some credit is due to Trump not starting any wars, I have to think it was
unintentional on Trump's part, as evidenced by the same list of ultra aggressive foreign
policy advisors he appointed.
More likely, the subpar crop of new wars was the result of the foreign policy apparatus
refusing to give his administration the authority to launch any original policy of their own.
Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria were continuations of existing policy, and sponsored by
"respected" interests (respectively: by the Oil Industry, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and all of
the above).
The biggest foreign policy initiative of all, cold war with China, is a long term
bipartisan project.
RSH's warning that Trump could still start a war should be taken very seriously. Trump has
vowed that he will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Will he leave office without
ENSURING that they cannot?
I don't think for a minute think that Zionist Biden will do anything to upset Israel. But
the election of Biden is a convenient excuse for Trump to start a war (probably based on a
false flag of some sort) that Biden (or Kamala-Hillary) will "inherit".
@ pnyx #43 . . .on Biden. Just think of the warmongering role he played for the Iraq war. The Neocons
would have an easier time with Biden than with Tronald
Yes. Biden is a Clintonite, Trump was anti-Clinton.
The US war in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - with its death, destruction and displacement
has been rightly called the worst US foreign policy move ever.
The Clintons started it, and then promoted it with Biden's assistance as Chair of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton announces he has ordered air strikes against
Iraq because it refused to cooperate with United Nations (U.N.) weapons inspectors.
Trump's foreign policies were remarkably different? How? He assassinated an Iranian
general, which nearly had the US enter into a hot war with Iran, bombed Syria twice, put
additional sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the DPRK. Trump's State Department has
successfully enacted regime change in Zimbabwe, Sudan, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Bolivia
(Mike Pompeo congratulating Luis Arce on his win -- very suspicious), and is trying regime
change in Hong Kong, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe again, and as
of late, Nigeria.
You could argue that Trump wants Iran to be somewhat stronger so he can sell more weapons
to his MIC buddies and profit that way, therefore he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and
the weapons import/export sanctions on Iran expired. But that's a different and more brash
method of managing Empire. It's different from Biden's "strategic de-escalation" policy with
Iran via the Iran nuclear deal, but not that one that necessarily yields better results for
Iran in the long term.
Calm down folks, the elected officials in the US have been puppets of the elite for the
entire history of the country.
The problem we're facing is within the elite community and far above any government's
control.
They didn't legalize drone striking "terrorists" any where on the globe by accident.
This means the elite are terrified of the fact that the internet and Trump both have exposed
them for the morally bankrupt, greedy, mass murdering psychopaths they truly are.
The accidental presidency of Trump made them realize that their useful idiots(elected
officials) where more idiots than useful and that they had to use the state sponsored
monopolies in the press as well as their privately controlled publicly funded covert
community to steer the narrative away from actual reality into their alternative commoditized
version of reality.
Trump was never trying to defend America from the elite for the common man. He was trying
to exploit the elite who had rejected him and his father for decades as well as cash in on
their predicament in order to pay off his debts and start his own reality TV network.
I agree Trump was useful and informative but in the end he, like us is just along for the
ride.
Don't do anything rash and don't for one second think a regime change in America is a rare
occurrence. Remember the Kennedy's ?
The only way to win is to not become one of the elite's useful idiots by lashing out
against another citizen. Poor and middle class only get the illusion they help decide
policy.
The policy is decided and auctioned off within the billionaire funded think tanks and sent to
the useful idiots in DC to be rubber stamped in order to trick you into thinking the
legislative branch is legitimate. These people could f*ck up a two car parade and prove it
over and over again.
Stay sane folks, the motives haven't changed in centuries and the elite are far more
scared of us than they are the other elite's because they all know they're all cowards.
In addition, considering Trump was supposedly a Russian puppet, Congress under his admin
passed a bill which allowed the US to arm Ukraine against Russia even more.
Wonderful and thought provoking analysis of current political affairs b. However I would
like to add that Biden and Trump are the products of political trends that have deep roots in
modern US and world political affairs that have been ongoing for some 100 years or more.
Biden and Trump did not occur in a vacuum. Both are products of the two world wars that were
fought in the last century. More recently, the US since 1940 and continuing to the present
day, has been actively preparing or fighting a major war somewhere on this planet. This
development has in turn created a vast military and civilian bureaucracy that constantly
needs to be fed a diet of real or imagined threats in order to survive.
The world recognizes what U.S. elites don't: the utter, total American failure to contain
Covid-19 has damaged U.S. standing and will do so until the virus is controlled. Meanwhile,
regional powers, China and Russia, cooperate and share resources, particularly vaccines. Cuba
provides treatments, but the U.S. turns up its nose at Cuban medicine, even if it means more
American covid patients die – this, though Cuba's pharmacopeia for this plague appears
superior. China sends doctors and medicines across the globe. Russia opts for sane herd
immunity – through vaccination. These countries act like adults. Not a good look for the
U.S.
The Obama regime's deplorable trade and military "pivot to China," along with its sanctions
against high-ranking Russians and Russian energy, financial and defense firms and the Trump
regime's provocations, sanctions and insults aimed at both countries have now born fruit: There
is talk of a military alliance between China and Russia. Both countries deny that such is in
the offing, but the fact that it is even discussed reveals how effectively U.S. foreign policy
has created enemies and united them. Even if they would have drawn closer anyway, China and
Russia cannot ignore the advantage of teaming up in the face of U.S. hostility. A more idiotic
approach than this hostility is scarcely imaginable. Remember, not too long ago the U.S. had
little problem with its chief trading partner, China, and there were even reports some years
back of actual military cooperation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia. All that is gone now,
dissolved in a fog of deliberate ill-will.
So what are some of the absurd U.S. policies that have reaped this potential whirlwind? An
utterly unnecessary trade war with China, with tariffs that were paid, not by China, but by
importers and then passed on to American consumers. There is the Trump regime's assault on
China's technology sector and its attempt to lockout Huawei from the 5G bonanza. Then there are
the attacks on Russian business, like its deal to sell natural gas to Germany, attacks in which
the U.S. insists Germany buy the much more expensive U.S. product to avoid becoming beholden to
Russia. And of course, there are the constant mega-deals involving sales of U.S. weapons to
anyone who might oppose China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.
Aggravating these economic assaults, the U.S. navy aggressively patrols the South China Sea,
the Black Sea and more and more the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has already been since forever.
Russia has a lengthy Siberian coast, making U.S. talk of Russia's so-called aggressive posture
there just plain ludicrous. And now a NATO ally, Turkey, stirs the pot by egging on Azerbaijan
in its war against Armenia, which has a defense treaty with Russia. Azerbaijan is famous for
the oil fields of Baku.
Never has it been clearer that the U.S. deploys its military might to advance its
corporations' interests, international law be damned. As General Smedley Butler wrote of his
military service way back in the early 20 th century, he was "a high-class muscle
man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster
for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make
Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in," and on
and on. Nothing has changed since them. It's only gotten worse. Indeed now we're in a position
where it is Russia that abides by international law, while the U.S. flouts it, instead
following something bogus it calls the "rules of the liberal international order."
The biggest and most consequential U.S. foreign policy failure involves nuclear weapons.
Here the Trump regime has outdone all its predecessors. It withdrew the U.S. from the
Intermediate Range Nuclear treaty, which banned land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles
and certain missile launchers and which it first signed in 1987. It withdrew from the Open
Skies Treaty, inked in 1992. That agreement allowed aircraft to fly over the signatories'
territory to monitor missile installations.
Trump has also made clear he intends to deep-six the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia,
which limits nuclear warheads, nuclear armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and
missile launchers. The Trump regime has made the ridiculous, treaty-killing demand that China
participate in START talks. Why should it? China has 300 nuclear missiles, on a par with
countries like the U.K. The U. S. and Russian have 6000 apiece. China's response? Sure we'll
join START, as soon as the U.S. cuts its arsenal to 300. Naturally that went over like a lead
balloon in Washington.
And now, lastly, the white house has urged nations that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons – which just recently received formal UN ratification – to
withdraw their approval. The U.S. spouted doubletalk about the TPNW's dangers, in order to head
off international law banning nuclear weapons, just as it has banned – and thus
stigmatized – chemical weapons, cluster bombs and germ warfare. Doubtless the Trump
regime's panic over the TPNW derives from its desire to "keep all options on the table"
militarily, including the nuclear one.
What is the point here? To make the unthinkable thinkable, to make nuclear war easier to
happen. The Pentagon appears delighted. Periodically military bigwigs are quoted praising new
smaller nuclear missiles, developed not for deterrence, but for use. Indeed, scrapping
deterrence policy – which has, insofar as it posits no first use, arguably been the only
thing keeping humanity alive and the planet habitable since the dangerous dawn of the atomic
era – has long been the dream of Pentagon promoters of "small, smart nuclear weapons" for
"limited" nuclear wars. How these geniuses would control such a move from escalating into a
wider nuclear war and planetary holocaust is never mentioned.
Before he assumed office, Trump reportedly shocked his advisors by asking, if we have
nuclear weapons, why can't we use them? Only someone dangerously ignorant or profoundly lacking
in basic human morality could ask such a question. Only someone eager to ditch the
human-species-saving policy of no-first-strike nuclear deterrence but willing to risk nuclear
extinction could flirt with such madness. Later in his presidency, Trump asserted that he could
end the war in Afghanistan easily if he wanted, hinting that he meant nukes, but that he did
not incline toward murdering 10 million people. Well, thank God for this shred of humanity.
Some assume a Biden presidency would chart a different course, but they may be counting
their chickens before they're hatched. Biden has made very hostile noises about Russia, China
and North Korea and has surrounded himself with neo-con hawks. He has so far made no promise to
return to the nuclear negotiating table for anything other than START. Would he try to
resuscitate the INF and Open Skies treaties? Would he end Trump regime blather aimed at
scotching TPNW? Maybe. Or he may have imbibed so much anti-Russia and anti-China poison that
he, like Trump, sees the absence of treaties as a green light for nuclear aggression.
Biden's official Foreign Policy Plan says that he regards the purpose of nuclear weapons as
deterrence, thus endorsing this at best very flawed compromise for survival. That he,
apparently unlike Trump, abjures a nuclear first strike is a huge relief, but how long will it
last? The Pentagon has been very persuasive over many decades of center-right rule and there is
no reason to assume that it will suddenly adopt a hands-off policy with Biden just because he
favors nuclear deterrence. Some military-industrial-complex sachems regard the no-first-use
principle as a mistake. Also, remember, Obama okayed a trillion-dollar nuclear arms upgrade.
Biden was his vp. What about that? This is no minor, petty concern. Russia is armed to the
teeth with supersonic nuclear weapons and China has concluded from U.S. belligerence that it
better arm up too. We are in dangerous waters here. Let's hope they don't become
radioactive.
In Lavrov's interview with Kommersant which was mostly about the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, he was asked about the US Election and then about the dire state of
relations with the EU. Lavrov reiterates Russia's position:
"I repeat once again that Russia will respect the choice of the American people, and that
we are ready to establish constructive cooperation with the winner of the race for the White
House, regardless of his party affiliation. However, considering the current circumstances,
we realistically assess the prospects of bilateral cooperation and do not expect too much.
Anyhow, let's wait for the voting results. We don't have long to wait."
Yes, the interview was done prior to the vote counting anarchy. IMO, we can substitute the
Outlaw US Empire for the EU in Lavrov's answer about the current crisis in relations:
"Russia's relations with the European Union are in crisis – and it is not our fault.
The EU bureaucracy and individual member states are using any, even the most absurd, reasons
to enhance something they call 'containment' of Russia.
"New sanctions, illegitimate from the international law perspective, are being imposed.
Considering the number of sanctions imposed on our citizens under far-fetched pretexts, the
EU is second only to the United States. The European media continue a broad anti-Russia
campaign. In trade and economy, the Brussels bureaucracy is stepping up various protectionist
policies, violating WTO rules and introducing its openly politicised rules of the game as
they go.
"At the same time, we are being told that Russia can "earn" the right to have normal
relations with the EU by changing its behaviour. This cynicism is absolutely off the
scale."
Lavrov repeats it's up to the EU to alter its behavior:
"[O]ur European colleagues must clearly understand that any interaction is only possible
on an honest and equal basis and respect for each other's interests. We will not allow any
one-sided games here. There will be no unilateral goodwill gestures on our part. We still
hope that a rational approach and common sense will prevail, both in Brussels and in member
capitals. We are ready to wait for that as well."
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent:
"Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked,
evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their
"support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.
The Australian parliament seems about to
approve a 'human rights' law that would establish the ability to exert arbitrary state power over individuals in other
countries who have been accused of human rights violations. Ironically, this law gives the accused no day in court, and no
chance to see charges or evidence, confront accusers, present a defence or have a ruling made by an authority other than the
prosecution.
The law is called a Magnitsky Act. Kimberley
Kitching, a Labor senator from Victoria, has given notice that she will introduce the bill in December. If it's like the other
Magnitsky Acts introduced in half a dozen countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, it will itself
violate human rights when it is weaponised to target international adversaries. How did Australia come to consider a law that
violates human rights? And how does it weaponise 'human rights' to target international adversaries? How come it isn't being
critically questioned by the media? How come it enjoys
bipartisan
support
? Here is the backstory Australians don't know. I call it the Browder Hoax.
In 1998 William Browder, an American
investor, gave up his passport to become British, which put him on the US Internal Revenue Service list of '
tax
expatriates
', as the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, doesn't tax profits on offshore holdings. This was
convenient because from the mid-1990s he invested in Russian shares, becoming, he says, the largest foreign holder of Russian
stocks. The shares were moved offshore to tax-free British Virgin Island
shells
.
In a 2007 scam involving collusive lawsuits
('You cheated me, you must pay'; 'Yes, I agree, I will pay'), Browder's shell companies claimed to the Russian Treasury that
they had to pay out all their 2006 profits and requested refunds of all taxes paid in 2006: $230 million. This was known as
the tax-refund fraud.
The victim of the scam was the Russian
Treasury, though Browder first lied to the
Financial
Times
that his companies had been targeted by crooked Russian officials who were after the companies' assets. This,
however, was rather unlikely, as the companies themselves were participants in the scam, and Browder later admitted in a US
federal court
deposition
that
his companies had no assets to go after.
Browder would then claim that the shells were
stolen by an unrelated criminal operation, but evidence raises questions about that. His trustee, HSBC (as confirmed by the
HSBC comptroller in US federal
court)
,
said in July 2007 that it needed $7 million for legal fees to recover stolen companies, but Browder wrote in his book he
didn't know that they were stolen till
October
of
that year.
Browder declares that his 'lawyer' Sergei
Magnitsky, hired in 2007 (and really his accountant since 1997), discovered the scam and was jailed because of it, and then
beaten to death when he wouldn't recant. However, Browder never provided evidence of this, and neither do Magnitsky's
pre-arrest
testimon
i
es
,
which list him as an auditor. In fact, the scam was first revealed in April 2008 by a Russian, Rimma
Starova
,
the figurehead director of a shell company that took over the companies, and reported in July by the
New
York Times
and the Russian paper
Vedomosti
.
Magnitsky didn't allude to it in testimony until October.
Magnitsky was
named
as
a fraud collaborator by the scam's operative, Viktor Markelov, in the Russian trial that sent Markelov to prison.
In fact, the whole Magnitsky hoax was
invented two years after the accountant's 2009 death (due to terrible prison medical care) when Browder needed to block the
Russians from using Interpol to arrest him and return him for trial over $100,000 in tax evasion (he falsely claimed that he
hired the disabled and invested locally) and illicit stock buys of Gazprom, the energy conglomerate whose share sales in
Russia were then restricted to Russian citizens (he used cut-out companies with nominee owners). Browder admitted the
'disabled' ruse in his US court deposition.
Browder's public statements to
Chatham
House
, London, and University of San Diego
Law
School
in the two years after Magnitsky's death said nothing about his being beaten. Browder invented the story that
Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards to promote the Magnitsky Act in the United States to block the Russians'
tax-evasion pursuit. The Physicians for Human Rights in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to whom he gave all his evidence,
contradicts
the
beating claim, but the 'attack' is nevertheless cited in the US law.
Thus the 2012 US 'Magnitsky Act', formally
known as the
Russia and Moldova
Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act
2012, sanctioned dozens of Russians that Browder
said, without evidence, were responsible for the death of his claimed 'lawyer' -- that is, his accountant, Magnitsky. They were
low-level officials, tax investigators, court officers, and medical and prison staff. It was a stretch to say that
investigators looking into tax evasion overseen by an accountant were responsible for his death in detention.
In fact, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
last
year that, 'The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion'. It said: 'The accusations were
based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several disabled persons
who had confessed to sham work for the two companies. One of them testified that he had been in contact with Mr Magnitskiy,
had received money from him and had assisted him in finding other sham employees. He also said that Mr Magnitskiy had told him
what to say if questioned by the authorities and had asked him to participate in a tax dispute as a witness'.
None of the targeted people were given a
chance to answer the charges. When former Interior Ministry tax investigator Pavel Karpov brought a defamation case in London
against Browder for accusing him of the murder of Magnitsky, the judge
ruled
that
he didn't have standing, because he didn't have a UK reputation to defend. However, the judge said there was no justification
for the charge. He said, 'nothing in this judgment is intended to suggest that, if the Defendants were to continue to publish
unjustified defamatory material about the Claimant, the Court would be powerless to act'. It was the only time any of the
targets had anything close to due process in a court of law.
The US act was expanded to sanction human
rights violators in any country of the world. Browder has had it passed in half a dozen countries, and is lobbying for an
Australian version. Putting Magnitsky's name on a law builds his wall against Russian justice. But the so-called 'human
rights' law has dangerous implications for the civil societies of democratic countries.
It violates due process of the law. People
accused of crimes in Australia have the right to hear the charges against them, to have evidence presented in court, to
challenge or refute the evidence and if found guilty to be punished according to law. Should people accused of crimes in
countries other than Australia be charged here while being denied those rights?
Michael McFaul, US ambassador to Russia from
2012 to 2014 and a friend of Browder's,
writes
in
his book
From Cold War to Hot Peace
that
before the Magnitsky Act the United States had already put Russians on a sanctions list. 'I was the one that ran that
decision-making process in the government. And we did that. And we don't need the Magnitsky Act to deny people visas to come
to the United States of America.' But, he said, Browder wanted a more public action: 'He said that wasn't good enough -- we
needed to do this publicly' -- with Magnitsky's name on the bill. McFaul went on:
'Bill and I had a philosophical
disagreement. I did not believe that the U.S. government should be able to seize individuals' private property without due
process. They should have the right to defend themselves in a court of law. Bill disagreed. He vowed to push on with his
campaign in Congress. I wished him luck'.
In fact, the Magnitsky Act is not about human
rights, which might have made the due-process issue salient. It is the weaponisation of human rights not only to benefit
Browder but to attack declared adversaries. The Magnitsky Acts are now added to an arsenal of sanctions that includes economic
sanctions against a country for 'crimes' attributed to their governments, though the crimes are not adjudicated by any
international tribunals, which would provide due process. Though the Magnitsky Act was devised by Browder to attack Russia,
Australian parliamentarians appear to be aiming it at China, which follows the United States' escalating campaign against that
nation. Most of the 160 witness
statements
filed
with the foreign affairs subcommittee considering the law came from invited witnesses attacking Beijing. Browder was one of a
handful invited to give live testimony. Critics of the bill were not. Later, former senior diplomat Tony Kevin was given a
chance to oppose the law in a
statement
and
a
hearing
.
In fact, the Australian parliament did its best to prevent critics of the proposed law from expressing their views even in
print. I filed an extensive comment exposing Browder's falsehoods that was largely
redacted
,
with links to documents
blocked
.
After I responded to a direct attack on me by
Browder, the subcommittee refused to post my response.
One must be careful about the models one
constructs. This law is aimed only at people in other countries, since Australian law guarantees due process to anyone charged
in Australia. How can Australia claim jurisdiction over crimes in other countries? Would it accept other countries claiming
jurisdiction over crimes alleged in Australia? This law would deprive people charged in other countries of rights enjoyed in
Australia. That challenges Australia's claims to be a country that honours the rule of law. In effect, the proposed law is not
aimed at people because they are human rights violators (such as some police in the United States or France) but because they
are political enemies (officials in Russia and Iran). This damages the legitimate worldwide human rights movement by allowing
targeted governments to dismiss charges as politically motivated. And in many cases, they would be right.
Beyond that, there may be another harmful
effect. Authoritarian right-wing political movements are growing in the world. Imagine what any of their governments could do
with a Star Chamber law bereft of due process that accuses and punishes political targets. They could say that they are just
copying the West. The precedent is poor. Back in 2001, George W. Bush's government pushed the UN General Assembly to
adopt
a resolution
requiring all member states to pass anti-terror laws, and this rapidly became an open invitation for various
regimes to bring in oppressive laws, with far-reaching consequences. The Magnitsky Act risks giving more tools to
authoritarian regimes.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.96fd96193cc66c3e11d4c5e4c7c7ec97.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Farena.org.au%2Fweaponising-human-rights-can-the-magnitsky-act-deny-due-process%2F&size=m&text=Weaponising%20Human%20Rights%3A%20Can%20the%20Magnitsky%20Act%20deny%20due%20process%3F%20%E2%80%93%20Arena&time=1604441826984&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Farena.org.au%2Fweaponising-human-rights-can-the-magnitsky-act-deny-due-process%2F&via=arenatweets
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
LUCY KOMISAR
Lucy Komisar is an investigative journalist
who writes about the secret underbelly of the global financial system -- offshore banking and corporate secrecy -- and its links
to corporate crime; tax evasion by the corporations and the very rich; empowerment of dictators and oligarchs; bribery and
corruption; drug and arms trafficking; and terrorism. She was the winner in 2010 of the Gerald Loeb, National Press Club,
Sigma Delta Chi, and National Headliner awards in the United States for her exposé of Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford, which was
printed by the
Miami Herald
. The Loeb
award is America's the United States' most prestigious prize for financial journalism. @lucykomisar
There are now much stronger arguments to believe that both Harvard mafia players and Browder
were puppets of certain intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ..."
"... You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter Bunny is real. ..."
@ 26 eric... thanks... unfortunately it seems michael hudson hasn't really commented on
russia in any significant way unless one goes back 5 years or so... i wonder how things have
changed since?? here is a link to the articles that top up using russia as the search term -
https://michael-hudson.com/?s=russia
i enjoyed the paul craig roberts - michael hudson article from 2019 on pcr's website...
again, i am not informed enough to make an informed comment on pcr's conclusions from march
of 2019... he and however much of the article hudson contributed - might be exactly right,
especially in the conclusions of the 3rd to last paragraph in the article.. i don't know...
thanks for the ongoing conversation..
@ Jen | Oct 24 2020 23:04 utc | 29 / 31.. thanks jen.. i haven't been to marks website in
a long time! i recall moscow exile.. is he still posting their?? regarding central banks and
nabiullina the head of russias central bank... i am not sure how many know this but the
position of being the head of a central bank in any country is not a position that is decided
upon by the country itself, or at least not in any democratic way... and the country is
supposed to not get involved in the politics of it either as i understand it... instead these
people are suggested in some other way - not elected - and while they do have to work with
the political leadership - they can't be gotten rid of easily as i understand it.. i think a
lot of this has to do with the way the international institutions work and how if a country
wants to be a part of this same international system of money, they need to accept the
structure as it is opaquely set up as... thus the central banks are under specific guidelines
that they have to follow that comes from somewhere outside the actual country.... i would
love someone to correct me on all this, but it is my present understanding of how this
particular system works... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
As for what happened in Russia during the breaking up of the USSR and the transition of
Russia during the 1990's - one could argue the agenda of the Harvard plan for Russia was to
exploit russia for it's resource rich territory and install people like Yletsin who would
happily go along with this madness..
Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person
well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the
encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ... just how much they
have managed to ween themselves off private finance - i have no idea... it sounds like they
are in the same boat as the rest of the planet in being beholden to private finance....
Of course private verses public finance is a confusing topic that keeps on getting
revisited here at moa and for good reason... i don't really know how all this interfaces with
everything else.. i appreciate erics particular vantage and am curious to hear of others
viewpoint as well.. thanks jen.. i have some other comments to read now on this topic from
H.Schmatz @ 28
You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the
Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the
employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds
that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter
Bunny is real.
@ old hippie... yes, i was aware of that - thanks.. if you haven't seen it yet - the movie
the Russian guy made on Browder is quite good - worth the watch, but i think you have to pay
for it now.. there was a time where you could watch it for free... yes indeed, the son worked
or works for the same folks as the father did...here is a link to the movie.. http://magnitskyact.com/
here is an interesting link that i found just looking for a link to the movie... if you
haven't watched the movie, this is a good start and covers it from a particular angle.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOx78CBq0Ck
Earl Browder was an interesting dude who led an interesting life..
I have not yet read the whole transcript of Putin´s long intervention in the Valdai
Discussion Club, and thus, I do not know how deep he went about last frenzy on "regime
change" intends in the post-Soviet space, but in case he did not put it clear enough,
background of the recent explosions of regime change intends in countries surrounding Russia
( Spoiler: it was all there in a 2019 Reand Corporation file...)
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He
followed the instructions.
On March 20, 2018, President
Donald Trump
sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said
Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all
of which were crucial to Trump's
2016 election victory
.
"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of
equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You
should have increased it," Trump
said
to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit
scores
of alleged war crimes.
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief
in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961
of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who
regularly
fantasizes
about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president
has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states,
promoted
the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs
in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for
companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own
political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense
industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral
considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest
and even part of his own political message, the deceptive
claim
that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from
Hartung
,
a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense
strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Next month's election
will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off
― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given
the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to
continue
getting richer, as they have in a dramatic
way
under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favorites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department
spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark
Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first
appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections
to military contractors,
per
the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance
of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently
revealed
― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a
Joe Biden
presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies'
profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring
process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors
and other special interests.
"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of
law in the
Trump administration
, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient
now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan
good-government group.
The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last
year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a
rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ―
including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that
Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit
that urged Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo
pushed
out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general
criticized
the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red
Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center
in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged
war crimes.
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the
defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro
pressured
Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared
Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally
spoke
with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies
as part of this year's
coronavirus
relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead,
a Washington Post investigation
showed
.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that
they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility
that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted
that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed
said
it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense
industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose
numbers have also
grown
as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson
announced
she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations
made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate
itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,"
Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending
generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville,
welcomed
Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed
Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given
that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel
Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president
for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."
With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the
health pandemic
dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead
in surveys of most swing states
, his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to
President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase
fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush
announced
the
decisions
at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made
the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest
margin
of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer
margin
than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President
Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12,
2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political
fortunes.
Checking The Receipts
The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments
about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating
to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A
HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations
like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite
defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight
preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions
include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics
shows
that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did
donate
$500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which
noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder
told
ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military
budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year,
per
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has
said
he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security
world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.
And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in
other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's
underway as the Pentagon's inspector general
investigates
how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect
on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International
Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014
― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain
support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents,
Scherb of Common Cause said.
"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics
and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear
overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing
CEO Dave Calhoun
has said
he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election,
arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.
In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do
just fine.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
"As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
The endpoint is to weaken Russia and sabotaging its economy. Less income through oil and
gas exports means less money for weapons, which affects Russia's operations beyond its
borders, less money for hospitals, education, welfare etc. increasing domestic instability
etc.
Diplomatically Russia is also weakened by having its reputation tarnished, regardless of
whether it deserves it or not.
In order to get to the King, the pieces standing in front of it must be either taken out
or moved out of the way. Sanctions, informational and economic warfare are the only available
pieces on the chess board, short of direct military confrontation.
The timing of the weapons
deals strongly suggests a calculated move by the Trump White House to deliberately
antagonize China. After all, the Republican president and his Democrat rival have been sparring
over which one is tougher towards Beijing. Riling up China would therefore play into President
Donald Trump's hawkish posturing.
With recent opinion polls showing Trump losing ground to Joe Biden only three weeks from the
ballot, it looks like the incumbent is throwing everything including the kitchen sink to boost
his re-election chances. Announcing sped-up troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, as well as a
touted nuclear arms agreement with Russia (dismissed by Moscow as overblown), seems to be part
of a last-gasp effort by the Trump campaign to scrape up votes.
But offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is taking electioneering to recklessly dangerous
levels. Trump may be betting that China will huff and puff and then a turn blind eye, thereby
permitting him to make political gain without any real damage done – like starting a
war.
It's more precarious than that. The Trump administration has been using Taiwan as a catspaw
against China for too long. The latest weapons deals being proposed are just part of a slew of
advanced armaments that the Trump White House has overseen in its determination to aggravate
Beijing.
The moves by the Trump administration to increase supply of offensive weapons systems to
Taiwan are unprecedented. Since Washington formally broke ties with Taiwan in 1979, as part of
its One China policy to placate Beijing's territorial claims, previous administrations have
limited arms sales to the breakaway island to "defensive" armaments.
Under Trump, however, Washington has signaled it is abandoning its One China
policy by explicitly moving towards supporting Taiwan and its separatist position. Selling
offensive missiles, torpedoes, anti-ship mines and F-16s to Taiwan over the past year alone
is letting China know that the US is threatening to back the island in an armed confrontation
with the mainland.
In recent months, the Trump administration has sent the most senior US officials on
high-profile
visits to Taiwan since 1979. Last month, Kelly Craft, the American ambassador to the UN,
declared support
for Taiwan to have official representation at the world body. Those high-level state
acknowledgements have coincided with Washington sending high-powered military forces
to the Taiwan Strait in the form of warships and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers.
These provocative moves have been met by China escalating its military forces in a show of
strength to underpin its self-declared right to retake Taiwan, which Beijing views as a
renegade state since the 1949 civil war when the defeated nationalist faction exiled there.
The anti-China hostility generated in Washington is a
bipartisan position adopted by Republicans and Democrats. That means the weapons sales
lined up by Trump for Taiwan will likely be voted through, no matter who wins the presidential
contest on November 3. There's also at least another four major arms packages
reportedly in the works due at a later stage.
The US foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon – as seen in several planning
documents over recent
years – have targeted China as a great power rival. The antagonism that Trump has
certainly lent his brash personality to is not going away even if he loses the election next
month.
Piling on weapons sales to Taiwan is not merely a reprehensible electioneering ploy which
Trump might cynically calculate benefits him. It is part of a growing dynamic of belligerence
out of Washington towards Beijing. Whether it's Trump or Biden sitting in the White House, that
doesn't alter the disastrous collision course that Washington is charting towards Beijing based
on the former's presumed imperialist prerogatives.
It's a foreboding sign of the times when China's President Xi Jinping this week
warned combat marines to be prepared for war in defense of the nation's sovereignty.
America's cowardly habit of beating up on other people for its own political ego trips
sooner or later goes too far. Washington messing around with China's sovereignty and national
security as seen with incorrigible and increasingly offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is
playing with fire. A fire that could be just one spark away.
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.
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
NATO seems to be trying to frighten Russia with maneuvers in Poland and B-52 flights over
the Ukraine and the Black Sea ( see here for a full analysis). As for the
Poles and Ukronazis, they apparently believe that the Russian bear covered himself in poop and
ran away at full speed.
What I am going to say next is not a secret, every military person who looked into this
issue knows and understands this: NATO, and I mean the combined power of all NATO member
states, simply does not have the hardware needed to wage a war against Russia in Europe. What
NATO does have is only sufficient to trigger a serious incident which might result in a
shooting war. But once this war starts, the chances of victory for NATO are exactly zero.
Why?
Well, for one thing, while coalitions of countries might give a thin veneer of political
legitimacy to a military action (in reality, only a UNSC resolution would), in purely military
terms you are much better off having a single national military. Not only that, but coalitions
are nothing but the expression of an often held delusion: the delusion that the little guy can
hide behind the back of the big guy. Poland's entire history can be summarized in this simple
principle: strike the weak and bootlick (or
even worse !) the powerful. In contrast, real military powers don't count on some other guy
doing the heavy lifting for them. They simply fight until they win.
Yes, the Europeans, being the cowards that they are, do believe that there is safety in
numbers. But each time these midgets gang up on Russia and start barking (or, to use Putin's
expression, start oinking ) all together, the Russians clearly
see that the Europeans are afraid. Otherwise, they would not constantly seek somebody to
protect them (even against a non-existing threat).
As a direct result of this delusion, NATO simply does not have the equivalent of the
First
Guard Tank Army in spite of the fact that NATO has a bigger population and much bigger
budgets than Russia. Such a tank Army is what it would take to fight a real war in Europe,
Russia has such an Army. NATO does not.
The other thing NATO does not have is a real integrated multi-layered air defense system.
Russia does.
Lastly, NATO has no hypersonic weapons. Russia does.
(According to President Trump, the US does have super-dooper " hydrosonic " weapons, but nobody really knows what that is
supposed to mean).
I would even argue that the comparatively smaller Belarusian military could make hamburger
meat of the roughly three times larger Polish armed forces in a very short time (unlike the
Poles, the Belarusian are excellent soldiers and they know that they are surrounded by hostile
countries on three sides).
As for the "armed forces" of the Baltic statelets, they are just a sad joke.
One more example: the Empire is now sending ships into the Black Sea as some kind of "show
of force". Yet, every military analyst out there knows that the Black Sea is a "Russian lake"
and that no matter how many ships the US or NATO sends into the Black Sea, their life
expectancy in case of a conflict would be measured in minutes.
There is a popular expression in Russia which, I submit, beautifully sums up the current
US/NATO doctrine: пугать ежа
голой
задницей , which can be translated as "
trying to scare a hedgehog with your naked bottom ".
The truth is that NATO military forces currently are all in very bad shape – all of
them, including the US – and that their only advantage over Russia is in numbers. But as
soon as you factor in training, command and control, the ability to operate with severely
degraded C3I capabilities, the average age of military hardware or morale – the Russian
armed forces are far ahead of the West.
Does anybody sincerely believe that a few B-52s and a few thousand soldiers from different
countries playing war in Poland will really scare the Russian generals?
But if not – why the threats?
My explanation is simple: the rulers of the Empire simply hope that the people in the West
will never find out how bad their current military posture really is, and they also know that
Russia will never attack first – so they simply pretend like they are still big, mighty
and relevant. This is made even easier by the fact that the Russians always downplay their real
capabilities (in sharp contrast to the West which always brags about "the best XYZ in the
world"). That, and the fact that nobody in the Western ruling classes wants to admit that the
game is over and that the Empire has collapsed.
... the Empire still refuses to deal with Russia in any other way except insults, bullying,
threats, accusations, sanctions, and constant sabre-rattling. This has never, and I mean never,
worked in the past, and it won't work in the future. But, apparently, NATO generals simply
cannot comprehend that insanity can be defined as " doing the same thing over and over
again, while hoping to achieve different results ".
Finally, I will conclude with a short mention of US politicians.
First, Trump. He now declares that the Russians stole the secret of hypersonic weapons from
Obama. This reminds me of how the Brits declared that Russia stole their vaccine against the
sars-cov-2 virus. But, if the Russians stole all that, why is it that ONLY Russia has deployed
hypersonic weapons (not the US) and ONLY Russia has both two vaccines and 2 actual treatments
(and not the UK)? For a good laugh, check out Andrei Martyanov's great column " Russia
Steal Everything ".
And then there is Nancy Pelosi who, apparently, is considering, yes, you guessed it –
yet another impeachment attempt against Trump? The charge this time? Exercising this
Presidential prerogative to nominate a successor to Ruth Ginsburg. Okay, Pelosi might be
senile, but she also is in deep denial if she thinks impeaching Trump is still a viable
project. Frankly? I think that she lost it.
In fact, I think that all the Dems have gone absolutely insane: they are now considering
packing both the Supreme Court and the Senate. The fact that doing so will destroy the US
political system does not seem to bother them in the least.
Conclusion: quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat !
We live in a world where facts or logic have simply become irrelevant and nobody cares about
such clearly outdated categories. We have elevated " doubleplusgoodthinking " into an art form. We
have also done away with the concepts of "proof" or "evidence" which we have replaced with
variations on the "highly likely" theme. We have also, for all practical purpose, jettisoned
the entire corpus of international law and replaced it with " rules-based
international order ". In fact, I can only agree with Chris Hedges who, in his superb book
the " Empire of
illusions " and of the "triumph of spectacle". He is absolutely correct: not only is this a
triumph of appearance over substance, and of ideology over reality, it is even the triumph of
self-destruction over self-preservation.
There is not big "master plan", no complex international conspiracy, no 5D chess. All we
have is yet another empire committing suicide and, like so many before this one, this suicide
is executed by this empire's ruling classes.
According to the updated Russian military doctrine, any missile fired at Russia would be
considered tipped with Nuclear war head. If so, with available Hypersonic weapons, a
significant portions of the Empire, including EU would be potentially turned to Radioactive
ash within 20 minutes. Does this register at the highest levels of the Empire? I surely
hope so.
"Trump doesn't even have the balls to go after the people who spied on him and tried to
remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal in American
history, yet nothing will be done about it."
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all political
theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office ( they could've
added his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to
the impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
We are talking about thee most brazen pack of hypocrites, but charging Trump with war
crimes with Obama, Bush, Clinton's, and Dick Cheney just standing around just might be a
bridge too far.
However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my
first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands
that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength."
And as we've seen all of it was a lie. Trump's whole campaign was a calculated
bait-and-switch fraud. In order to win the election the con man had to steal votes from antiwar
voters such as myself just the same as if he'd rigged voting machines.
Trump is a lying, mass-murdering, psychotic, psychopathic, traitorous, Israel-first,
America-last hard core militant zionist extremist.
Photograph Source: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-P098967 – CC BY-SA 3.0 de
It is time for the United States to debate the downsizing, if not the dissolution, of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. national security would be strengthened by the
demise of NATO because Washington would no longer have to guarantee the security of 14 Central
and East European nations, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
European defense coordination and integration would be more manageable without the
participation of authoritarian governments in Poland and Hungary. Key West European nations
presumably would favor getting out from under the use of U.S. military power in the Balkans,
the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, which has made them feel as if they were "tins of shoe
polish for American boots."
Russia would obviously be a geopolitical winner in any weakening -- let alone the demise --
of NATO, but the fears of Russian military intervention outside of the Slavic community are
exaggerated. The East European and Baltic states would protest any weakening of NATO, but it
would be an incentive for them to increase their own security cooperation.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created seven decades ago as a political
and military alliance to "keep the United States in Europe; the Soviet Union out of Europe; and
Germany down in Europe." The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989; the Warsaw Pact and the East
European communist governments in 1990; and the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the high water mark
for the alliance.
For the past three decades, however, the United States has weakened NATO by forcing a
hurried and awkward expansion on the alliance. Most recently in 2020, North Macedonia was
admitted as its 30th member, further weakening the integrity of the alliance. Did President
Donald Trump actually believe that the presence of North Macedonia as well as 13 other Central
European states would strengthen U.S. security?
The enlargement of NATO demonstrated the strategic mishandling of Russia, which now finds
the United States and Russia in a rivalry reminiscent of the Cold War. President Bill Clinton
was responsible for bringing former members of the Warsaw Pact into NATO, starting in the
late-1990s; President George W. Bush introduced former republics of the Soviet Union in his
first term. German Chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for dissuading Bush from seeking
membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
The United States justified the expansion of NATO as a way to create more liberal,
democratic members, but this has not been the case for the East European members. Russia,
moreover, views the expansion as a return to containment and a threat to its national security.
Russia was angered by the expansion from the outset, particularly since President George H.W.
Bush and Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign
Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that the United States wouldn't "leap frog" over Germany if the
Soviets pulled their 380,000 troops out of East Germany.
NATO's success from 1949 to 1991 was marked by a common perception of the Soviet threat,
which is the key to solidarity in any alliance framework. In 2020, however, the 30 members of
NATO no longer share a common perception of the Russian threat in Europe. The United States has
one view of Russia; the key nations of West Europe have a more benign view; and the East
Europeans perceive a dire threat that the others do not share. The United States has always
expressed some dissatisfaction with the asymmetric burden sharing and risk sharing within the
alliance, and the Trump administration has threatened to withdraw from NATO over the burden
sharing issue.
Turkey has rapidly become the outlier within NATO, and there have been a series of
confrontations in the eastern Mediterranean that threaten the integrity of the alliance. Greek
and Turkish warships collided in August, creating the first such confrontation between the two
navies since 1996, when the Clinton administration mediated the problem. The United States no
longer acts in such diplomatic capacities, so French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped into
the breach by sending jet aircraft to the Greek island of Crete as well as warships to exercise
with the antiquated Greek navy. Greece and Turkey, which joined NATO together in 1952, are
rivals over economic zones in the Mediterranean where there are important deposits of oil and
natural gas. Greece and Turkey have squabbled since 1974 over the divided island of Cyprus.
Turkey and France have additional differences over Turkey's violations of the UN arms
embargo on Libya. The two NATO allies had a confrontation in the Mediterranean when a French
warship tried to inspect a Turkish vessel. Last week, France joined military exercises with
Greece and Italy in the eastern Mediterranean following a Turkish maritime violation of
contested waters. Paris backs Athens in the conflicting claims with Ankara over rights to
potential hydrocarbon resources on the continental shelf in the Mediterranean.
President Macron took a particularly tough line in stating that he was setting "red lines"
in the Mediterranean because the "Turks only consider and respect a red-line policy," adding
that he "did it in Syria" as well. Macron's tough stance is somewhat surprising in view of the
concern of France and other European NATO countries regarding Turkey's ability to turn on the
refugee spigot, which would cause economic problems in southern Europe. Turkey has been using
the refugee issue as leverage since 2015, when huge numbers of refugees in West Europe led to a
rightward shift in European politics.
There is also the problem of Turkey's purchase of the most sophisticated Russian air defense
system, the S-400, which was developed to counter the world's most sophisticated jet fighter,
the U.S. F-35. As a result of the purchase of the S-400 system, the United States reneged on
the sale of eight F-35s to Turkey at a loss of $862 million, creating additional problems
between Trump and Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey had planned to buy 100 F-35s
over the next several years, and had begun pilot training in the United States.
Trump's constant harangues about burden sharing have created more friction within NATO.
Trump falsely takes credit for increased European defense spending, but it was the Obama
administration that successfully arranged greater Canadian and European defense spending in
2014 in the wake of Russia's seizure of Crimea. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg panders
regularly to Trump on the issue of increased defense spending, ignoring Trump's false claims
that NATO spending will increase by $400 billion annually. The $400 billion is in fact the
increased spending over an eight-year period.
With Trump's drift toward isolationism and unilateralism ("America First"), there is
incentive for the European Community to take control of its own "autonomous" defense policy.
The Europeans have reason to believe that a second presidential term for Trump could lead to a
sudden U.S. withdrawal from NATO. The unilateralist character of U.S. foreign and defense
policy strengthens the case for building European defense cooperation along side of an
undetermined transatlantic relationship with the United States.
That's according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who pointed out that US broadcaster
RFE/RL, which is openly state-run, and British outlet BBC are also financed from public
funds.
Two of Russia's broadcasters are facing open discrimination across their countries of
accreditation, Lavrov told Sputnik.
RT has been forced to register with the US Justice Department under the 1938 Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA). Its correspondents have also been barred from attending events hosted
by the French president; likewise, RT and Sputnik have faced enormous difficulties while
reporting from Baltic nations.
"We are being presented with the argument that there is state funding [for RT and
Sputnik]," Lavrov commented. Nevertheless, there are is media in the West – the BBC
and Radio Liberty being prime examples – that also receive government donations and
"are considered beacons of democracy."
They also rely on state funding, but for some reason no restrictive measures are being
taken against them, including through the internet, where censorship is now openly
introduced.
This comes as audiences of both broadcasters are growing and their popularity is on the
rise. "I saw the statistics; I can only assume that this is another sign of the fear of
competition on the side of those who dominated the global information market until
recently," the foreign minister said.
The pressure Western nations pile on Russian media is one reason to wonder if they actually
practice what they preach. Lavrov recalled that the West demanded Russia "open up to the
world" during the period of perestroika – including by allowing full access "to
any kind of information, whether it was based on domestic sources or came from abroad."
Thirty years later, the West is "already even embarrassed" to stick to the same
principles when Russia asks "that access to information be respected, including in France
with respect to Sputnik and RT," Lavrov stated. France has its own state-funded outlets,
such as AFP, Radio France International and France 24.
Double standards, hypocrisy – unfortunately, these are the words to describe
their position.
Russia will take these matters to the upcoming ministerial summit of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) this December. "These questions will not
disappear anywhere from the agenda, our Western colleagues will have a lot to answer,"
Lavrov vowed.
Speaking about the pressure put on Russia in general – and often initiated by the
media and not among political circles – Lavrov described the current times as "the age
of social media, disinformation and fake news." It is fairly easy "to throw any
invention into the media domain" and get away with it, he said, adding, "and then no one
will read the rebuttal."
Crisis of neoliberal undermines the USA supremacy and the US elite hangs by the stras to the Full Specturm Domionanc edoctrine,
whih it now can't enforce and which is financially unsustainable for the USA.
Collapse of neoliberalism means the end of the USA supremacy and the whole political existence on the USA was banked on this
single card.
Notable quotes:
"... In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential," bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily. ..."
"... In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands, we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well. ..."
"... There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic opposition to communism. ..."
"... Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism. ..."
The international order is no longer bipolar, despite the elites' insistence otherwise.
Fortunately there is hope for change.
Despite its many failings and high human, social, and economic costs, American foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War has shown a remarkable degree of continuity and
inflexibility. This rather curious phenomenon is not limited to America alone. The North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment from Washington D.C. to London, which some have aptly
dubbed the "blob," has doggedly championed the grand strategic framework of "primacy" and armed
hegemony, often coated with more docile language such as "global leadership," "American
indispensability," and "strengthening the Western alliance."
In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian
Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In
fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when
it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential,"
bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily.
On the Left, and in the wake of
President Trump's election, the Democratic establishment began fixating its wrath on
Russia–adopting a confrontational stance toward Moscow and fueling fears of a renewed
Cold War. On the Right, the realigning GOP has increasingly, if at times inconsistently,
singled out China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, a hostile attitude further
exacerbated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alarmingly, Joe Biden, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has recently joined the hawkish bandwagon toward China, even attempting
to outflank Trump on this issue and attacking the president's China policy as too weak and
accommodating of China's rise.
In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate
lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive
forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called
on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands,
we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict
between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for
realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well.
Indeed, the dominant tendency among many foreign policy observers is to overprivilege the
threat of rising superpowers and to insist on strong containment measures to limit the spheres
of influence of the so-called revisionist powers. Such an approach, coupled with the prospect
of ascendant powers actively resisting and confronting the United States as the ruling global
hegemon, has one eminent International Relations scholar warning of the Thucydides Trap.
There are others, however, who insist that the structural shifts undermining the liberal
international order mark the end of U.S. hegemony and its "unipolar moment." In realist terms,
what Secretary Esper really means to protect, they would argue, is a conception of
"rules-based" global order that was a structural by-product of the Second World War and the
ensuing Cold War and whose very rules and institutions were underwritten by U.S. hegemony. This
would be an exercise in folly -- not corresponding to the reality of systemic change and the
return of great power competition and civilizational contestation.
What's more, the sanctimony of this "liberal" hegemonic order and the logic of democratic
peace were both presumably vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian
system, a black swan event that for many had heralded the "end of history" and promised the
advent of the American century. A great deal of lives, capital, resources, and goodwill were
sacrificed by America and her allies toward that crusade for liberty and universality, which
was only the most recent iteration of a radically utopian element in American political thought
going back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Alas, as it had eluded earlier generations of
idealists, that century never truly arrived, and neither did the empire of liberty and
prosperity that it loftily aimed to establish.
Today, the emerging reality of a multipolar world and alternate worldviews championed by the
different cultural blocs led by China and Russia appears to have finally burst the bubble of
American Triumphalism, proving that the ideas behind it are "not simply obsolete but absurd."
This failure should have been expected since the very project the idealists had espoused was
built on a pathological "savior complex" and a false truism that reflected the West's own
absolutist and distorted sense of ideological and moral superiority. Samuel Huntington might
have been right all along to cast doubt on the long-term salience of using ideology and
doctrinal universalism as the dividing principle for international relations. His call to
focus, instead, on civilizational distinction, the permanent power of culture on human action,
and the need to find common ground rings especially true today. Indeed, fostering a spirit of
coexistence and open dialogue among the world's great civilizational complexes is a fundamental
tenet of a cultural realism.
And yet, despite such permanent shifts in the global order away from universalist
dichotomies and global hegemony and toward culturalism and multi-polarity, there exists a
profound disjunction between the structural realities of the international system and the often
business-as-usual attitude of the North Atlantic foreign policy elites. How could one explain
the astonishing levels of rigidity and continuity on the part of the "blob" and the
military-industrial-congressional complex regularly pushing for more adventurism and
interventionism abroad? Why would the bipartisan primacist establishment, which their allies in
the mainstream media endeavor still to mask, justify such illiberal acts of aggression and
attempts at empire by weaponizing the moralistic language of human rights, individual liberty,
and democracy in a world increasingly awakened to arbitrary ideological framing?
There are, of course, systemic reasons behind the power and perpetuation of the blob and the
endurance of primacy. The vast economic incentives of war and its instruments, institutional
routinization and intransigence, stupefaction and groupthink of government bureaucracy, and the
significant influence of lobbying efforts by foreign governments and other vested interest
groups could each partly explain the remarkable continuity of the North Atlantic foreign policy
establishment. The endless stream of funding from the defense industry, neoliberal and
neoconservative foundations, as well as the government itself keeps the "blob" alive, while the
general penchant for bipartisanship around preserving the status quo allows it to thrive. What
is more, elite schools produce highly analytic yet narrowly focused and conventional minds that
are tamed to be agreeable so as to not undermine elite consensus. This conveyor belt feeds the
"blob," supplying it with the army of specialists, experts, and wonks it requires to function
as a mind melding hive, while in practice safeguarding employment for the career bureaucrats
for decades to come.
There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable
persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a
Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The world might have changed fundamentally with the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989, the bipolar structure of the international system might have ended irreversibly, but the
personnel -- the Baby Boomer Generation elites conducting foreign policy in the North Atlantic
-- did not leave office or retire with the collapse of the USSR. They largely remain in power
to this day.
Every generation is forged through a formative crisis, its experiences seen through the
prism that all-encompassing ordeal. For the incumbent elites, that generational crisis was the
Cold War and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation. The dualistic paradigm of the
international system during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry bred an entire generation to see the world
through a black-and-white binary. It should come as no surprise that this era elevated the
idealist strain of thought and the crusading, neo-Jacobin impulse of U.S. foreign policy
(personified by Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson) to new, ever-expanding heights. Idealism
prizes a nemesis and thus revels in a bipolar order.
Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment
that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of
the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the
past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of
the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the
system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of
exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic
opposition to communism.
Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize
and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological
superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism.
After all, a nemetic zeitgeist during which ideology reigned supreme and realism was routinely
discounted was tailor-made for dogmatic absolutism and moral universalism. In such a zero-sum
strategic environment, it was only natural to demand totality and frame the ongoing
geopolitical struggle in terms of an existential opposition over Good and Evil that would quite
literally split the world in two.
Today, that same kind of Manichean thinking continues to handicap paradigmatic change in
foreign policy. A false consciousness, it underpins and promotes belief in the double myths of
indispensability and absolute exceptionality, suggesting that the North Atlantic bloc holds a
certain monopoly on all that is good and true. It is not by chance that such pathological
renderings of "exceptionalism" and "leadership" have been wielded as convenient rationale and
intellectual placeholders for the ideology of empire across the North Atlantic. This sense of
ingrained moral self-righteousness, coupled with an attitude that celebrates activism,
utopianism, and interventionism in foreign policy, has created and reinforced a culture of
strategic overextension and imperial overreach.
It is this very culture -- personified and dominated by the Baby Boomers and the blob they
birthed -- that has made hawkishness ubiquitous, avoids any real reckoning as to the limits of
power, and habitually belittles calls for restraint and moderation as isolationism. In truth,
however, what has been the exceptional part in the delusion of absolute exceptionalism is Pax
Americana, liberal hegemony, and the hubris that animates them having gone uncontested and
unchecked for so long. That confrontation could begin in earnest by directly challenging the
Boomer blob itself -- and by propagating a counter-elite offering a starkly different
worldview.
Achieving such a genuine paradigm shift demands a generational sea-change, to retire the old
blob and make a better one in its place. It is about time for the old establishment to forgo
its reign, allowing a new younger cohort from among the Millennial and post-Millennial
generations to advance into leadership roles. The Millennials, especially, are now the largest
generation of eligible voters (overtaking the Baby Boomers) as well as the first generation not
habituated by the Cold War; in fact, many of them grew up during the "unipolar moment" of
American hegemony. Hence, their generational identity is not built around a dualistic alterity.
Free from obsessive fixation on ideological supremacy, most among them reject total global
dominance as both unattainable and undesirable.
Instead, their worldview is shaped by an entirely different set of experiences and
disappointments. Their generational crisis was brought on by a series of catastrophic
interventions and endless wars around the world -- chief among them the debacles in Afghanistan
and Iraq and the toppling of Libya's Gaddafi -- punctuated by repeated onslaughts of financial
recessions and domestic strife. The atmosphere of uncertainty, instability, and general chaos
has bred discontent, turning many Millennials into pragmatic realists who are disenchanted with
the system, critical of the pontificating establishment, and naturally skeptical of lofty
ideals and utopian doctrines.
In short, this is not an absolutist and complacent generation of idealists, but one steeped
in realism and a certain perspectivism that has internalized the inherent relativity of both
power and truth. Most witnessed the dangers of overreach, hubris, and a moralized foreign
policy, so they are actively self-reflective, circumspect, and restrained. As a generation,
they appear to be less the moralist and the global activist and more prudent, level-headed, and
temperamentally conservative -- developing a keen appreciation for realpolitik, sovereignty,
and national interest. Their preference for a non-ideological approach in foreign policy
suggests that once in power, they will be less antagonistic and more tolerant of rival powers
and accepting of pluralism in the international system. That openness to civilizational
distinction and global cultural pluralism also implies that future Millennial statesmen will
subscribe to a more humble, less grandiose, and narrower definition of interest that focuses on
securing core objectives -- i.e., preserving national security and recognizing spheres of
influence.
Reforming and rehabilitating the U.S. foreign policy establishment will require more than
policy prescriptions and comprehensive reports: it needs generational change. To transform and
finally "rein in" North Atlantic foreign policy, our task today must be to facilitate and
expedite this shift. Once that occurs, the incoming Millennials should be better positioned to
discard the deep-seated and routinized ideology of empire, supplanting it with a greater
emphasis on partnership that is driven by mutual interests and a general commitment to sharing
the globe with the world's other great cultures.
This new approach calls for America to lead by the power of its example, exhibiting the
benefits of liberty and a constitutional republic at home, without forcibly imposing those
values abroad. Such an outlook means abandoning the coercive regime change agendas and the
corrosive projects of nation-building and democracy promotion. In this new multipolar world,
America would be an able, dynamic, and equal participant in ensuring sustainable peace
side-by-side the world's other great powers, acting as "a normal country in a normal time."
Reflecting the spirit of republican governance authentically is far more pertinent now and
salutary for the future of the North Atlantic peoples than is promulgating the utopian image of
a shining city on a hill.
Arta Moeini is research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a postdoc
fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Dr. Moeini's latest project advances a
theory of cultural realism as a cornerstone to a new understanding of foreign policy.
The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy will be co-sponsoring "The Future of Grand Strategy
in the Post-COVID World," with TAC, tonight at 6 p.m. ET. Register for free here
.
By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early
September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of
noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always
maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.
Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back
in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows,
not just in Berlin but across the EU.
Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President
Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.
Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation,
managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate
on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European
common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.
I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments.
The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.
But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced
energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went
operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (£8.4bn)
1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.
But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian
opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy
from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's
state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and
reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.
These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced.
And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies
in retrospect.
Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown
everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia,
and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.
Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve
agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD)
stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream
2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen "
a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned
was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.
He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out
that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany."
Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement
in the affair.
The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up
foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying
to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance
between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now
a major foreign policy crisis.
The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension,
and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.
When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians
and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September
2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there
is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus.
What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.
So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social
democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation,
it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from
the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).
Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes
it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.
What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might
serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of
transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.
As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract –
will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization
was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude
contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?
In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas
pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute
on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were
in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia
etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.
So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts
be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much
too many) and not on arbitrariness.
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.
silvermoon 5 hours ago
All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests
with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.
Count_Cash
silvermoon 3 hours ago
Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening
time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when
you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!
gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago
U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of,
and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies
and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures
and regime itself.
Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago
Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical
weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think
about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok
again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.
Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it
was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.
It sounds
that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe
it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.
silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago
Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The
US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for
the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.
seawolf 6 hours ago
Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.
Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago
Exactly.
I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on
supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply,
just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe,
which means relations will only get worse.
Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago
If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through
Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or
that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are
they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on
these countries for doing so?
Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago
Its a far longer list
and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.
Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest
of Germany to stop de project. Reply
magicmirror 6 hours ago
Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and
time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.
SmellLaRata
5 hours ago
All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ?
And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi,
the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government
involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under
Obama.
gainwmn SmellLaRata
4 hours ago
Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried
by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons)
case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has
been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but
the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except
RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon,
not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would
say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective
perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about
innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make
the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge
it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.
Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago
After completing the pipe and
it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people
Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours
ago
How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North
America.
Hilarous 5 hours ago
The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists
for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas
magicmirror
Hilarous 4 hours ago
freedom gas and handsome presents .....
SandythePole 3 hours ago
This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied'
Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still
gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this
to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is
time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.
dunkie56 3 hours ago
Perhaps Russia should disengage
with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's
ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between
itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but
it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead
horse!
Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like
China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system.
So Russia is left out in the rain..
micktaketo 5 hours ago
I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia
should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt
countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first,
because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This
corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in
getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people
do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more
than one way to skin a cat, they say.
Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago
There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU
politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a
new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I
and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.
The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep
this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position
depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael
McFaul.
Notable quotes:
"... Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic senator who never met a war he didn't like. ..."
"... It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989 at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings. ..."
"... To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group. ..."
"... She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship with fraudsters. ..."
"... On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen. ..."
"... Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died. ..."
"... How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal ..."
"... Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act. ..."
"... Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik." ..."
"... The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate. ..."
"... It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of the law to see how it is based on the fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.) ..."
As the Democratic Convention is in progress, it is fitting to look at how Democrats in Congress and the White House, with Republican
collaboration, were responsible for the
Magnitsky Act , the law that protects tax fraudster William Browder and his henchman Mikhail Khodorkovsky by erecting a wall
against their having to face justice for their financial crimes. And ramps up hostility against Russia.
The fraudster William Browder .
This is a half-hour interview about this I did today on this subject
for Fault Lines . And a 15-minute
interview for The Critical
Hour . Here is an expanded version of what I said.
William Browder in the mid-1990s became manager of the Hermitage Fund, set up with $25 million from Lebanese-Brazilian banker
Edmond Safra and Israeli mining investor Beny Steinmez to buy shares in Russian companies.
He says he started the fund, but that is a lie. He was brought in to manage other people's money. But after some years, when the
two investors either died or confronted major financial problems, Browder gained control.
Browder doesn't like paying taxes.
Browder was an American who traded his citizenship for a UK passport in 1998 so he could avoid paying U.S. taxes on his stock
profits. ( CBS called
him a tax expatriate.)
He didn't like paying Russian taxes either. In an early rip-off, he and his partners billionaire Kenneth Dart of Dart cups and
New York investor Francis Baker bought a majority of Avisma, a titanium company, that produces material used in airplanes.
They cheated
minority investors and the Russian tax collector of profits by using transfer pricing.
You sell your production to a fake company at a low price, then your fake company sells it at the world price. You book lower
dividends to cheat minority shareholders, report lower taxes to cheat the Russian people.
Browder and partners bought Avisma from infamous oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the basis of continuing his transfer
pricing scam. It was revealed by documents in a lawsuit when Browder and partners sued another infamous guy, Peter Bond, the Isle
of man crook handling the rake-offs for not passing on the full amount of the skim. (No honor among thieves!) The legal documents
where Browder admits to the scam are linked in this
story
.
Browder cheats bigtime on Russia taxes
Browder's next corruption was to
cheat the Russians of taxes from his stock buys in Russia, to the tune of about $100million. That included claiming as deductions
disabled workers who didn't work for him, local investments he never made, profits from stock buys of Gazprom the Russian energy
conglomerate that non-Russians were not allowed to buy in Russia.
Investigations started in the early 2000s for $40 mil in evaded takes and led to legal judgments in 2004. When he refused to pay,
in November 2005 he was denied a Russian visa and in 2006 he moved all his assets out of Russia. But the Russian tax evasion investigations
continued.
Browder's accountant Sergei Magnitsky was arrested for investigation of the tax evasion in 2008, and the European Commission on
Human Rights
ruled last year that was correct because of the evidence and because he was a flight risk. Browder's fake narrative was that
Magnitsky, who he lied was his lawyer , had been arrested because he blew the whistle on a scheme by Russian officials to
embezzle money from the Russian Treasury. In his own U.S. federal
court deposition
, Browder admits Magnitsky didn't go to law school or have a law license. See his brief
video on
that.
Browder gives speeches that he didn't know how Magnitsky died
Then Magnitsky died of heart failure exacerbated by stomach disease which forensic reports say was not properly treated. Browder
first said (in talks at the British foreign policy association
Chatham House , London, a month after he died, and San Diego Law School
-- video at minute 6:20 -- a year later) he didn't know how Magnitsky died, but after a few years he invented a story that he
had been beaten to death.
Jonathan Winer, who helped Browder with his scam.
That story was developed by Jonathan Winer, a former assistant to Senator John Kerry and then a State Department official. Winer
was working for APCO, an international public relations company one of whose major clients was the same Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They
correctly assumed the western media would do no research. Or at least would not be allowed to report it. And the mainstream media
never did, except much later
Der Spiegel in Germany, which the rest of the western press ignored.
The plan was to get a U.S. law that would in effect block the Russians from going after certain Americans who had cheated on taxes.
They would be Browder and Khodorkovsky, who is actually named in the law.
Khodorkovsky would spend several hundred thousand dollars to buy Congressional support for the Magnitsky Act, clearly money
well spent. He duly reported it as lobbying expenses.
Here is how the Democrats and Republicans colluded in the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Much of this comes from Browder's own writings
in his mostly fake book "Red Notice." Note the corruption of both parties.
Magnitsky died in November 2009. Only four months later in March 2010, Browder was plotting his Magnitsky hoax, attacking Russians
he would claim were responsible for Magnitsky's death. But the bizarre part of the story is that he continued throughout 2010 to
say he didn't know how Magnitsky died, including in a videoed Dec 2010
San Diego law school talk. He obviously assumed U.S. media and politicians would not notice or care about the contradictions.
Ben Cardin, senator who signed on to Browder hoax.
Browder got Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin to send a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2010 urging
her to ban visas for 60 people Browder had listed (without evidence) as complicit in Magnitsky's death. (Remember 9 months later
in a videoed talk at San Diego Law School Browder says he didn't know how Magnitsky died.)
The letter to Hillary Clinton, written (Browder says in his book) by Browder acolyte Kyle Parker, a staffer at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said, I "urge you to immediately cancel and permanently withdraw the U.S. visa privileges of all those involved
in this crime, along with their dependents and family members." Immediately? No due process, not even for children and grandparents?
Cousins?
Attached to the letter was the list of the sixty officials Browder accused, without evidence, of involvement in Magnitsky's death
and a tax fraud against the Treasury.
Browder's fake tax refund fraud
The tax refund fraud was a scheme in which shell companies were set up to sue Browder's Hermitage companies claiming contract
violations and damages of $1billion. The Hermitage companies immediately agreed to pay (no evidence of actual bank transfers), then
demanded the Treasury pay a tax refund of $230million because they now had zero profits.
Viktor Markelov, tried and jailed for the scam,
said he worked with a Sergei Leonidovich, which is Magnitsky's name and patronymic. Other evidence, including an inexplicable
delay of months between Browder learning about the his companies being re-registered in other names and him reporting that as
"theft," indicates he was part of the scam too.
Note this: Hermitage trustee HSBC filed a financial document in July 2007 saying it was putting aside $7 million for legal
costs that might be required to get back the companies. This was five months before the tax refund fraud occurred. Albert
Dabbah, chief financial controller for HSBC, confirmed the
document's authenticity in U.S.
federal court. But Browder and Magnitsky (in his
testimony
) said they didn't learn about the "theft" till October 2007.
Theft of his companies? The best defense is a good offense. Accuse others of the crime you committed.
Senator Cardin was requesting that all sixty of Browder's accused have their U.S. travel privileges permanently revoked.
But Hillary didn't buy it. Then House staffer Parker arranged for Browder to
testify about the Magnitsky case May 6 th at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, not an official House body but
a pressure group set up in the name of a Russophobic former congressman from Hungary.
Congressman Jim McGovern would not send the evidence he promised, because he couldn't. There wasn't any.
The commission chairman was Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jim McGovern, who runs liberal but is a Russophobe who pretends
to be a human rights advocate.
Now what is really interesting is that seven months after this May 6 testimony, on December 6, 2010, Browder was telling the
San Diego law school (video 6:20 in) that "they put him in a straight
jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited outside the door until he died." Nothing about torture or killing. Had Browder forgotten
his dramatic beating story?
McGovern at the Lantos Commission hearing asked for no evidence. He said he would introduce legislation, put the 60 names Browder
cited in it, move it to the committee and make a formal recommendation from Congress, then pass it on the floor.
McGovern lies about sending evidence
Kimberly Stanton, who runs a propaganda operation and refused to provide evidence.
In July 2019, almost a decade later, I saw McGovern when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. I asked if he would send
me evidence backing the claim that Magnitsky was tortured and killed. He agreed and introduced me to an aide. The aide referred me
to Kimberly Stanton, director of the Lantos Commission, who refused in an
email
to provide any information. And said evidence against targeted people is not required!
I also wrote McGovern's press secretary Matt Bonaccorsi and legislative director Cindy Buhl. They ignored repeated requests, never
sent me anything. I conclude that Jim McGovern, who pretends to be a liberal civil rights promoter, is a fake and a fraud.
McGovern introduces a Magnitsky bill in the House.
John McCain, he loved fraudsters and wars.
Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic
senator who never met a war he didn't like.
It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened
in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989
at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings.
Keating was the target of a regulatory investigation. With powerful senators like McCain advocating his cause, the regulator
backed off taking action against Lincoln. Though Keating went to jail. McCain was cited only for exercising "poor judgment." Helping
a crook doesn't get you thrown out of the Senate.
To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary
and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington
office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group.
Juleanna Glover, former aide to Dick Cheney. She can buy you a bill .
She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship
with fraudsters.
On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat
of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or
the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen.
Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego
law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died.
Now here is how the law got passed. The Jackson-Vanick amendment put in place in the mid-1970s imposed trade sanctions on the
Soviet Union to punish it for not allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate. Well, nobody could emigrate. Eventually 1.5 million Jews were
allowed to leave the country.
How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal
Thirty-seven years later the Soviet Union no longer existed, and everybody could emigrate, but Jackson-Vanik was still on the
books. It blocked American corporations from enjoying the same trade benefits with Russia as the world's other WTO members.
So, the U.S. business community said Jackson-Vanik had to go, and the Obama administration agreed. So did John Kerry, chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They needed an act of Congress.
Meanwhile, Kerry opposed the Magnitsky Act which he considered untoward interference in Russia (is that like saying meddling?)
and had been delaying bringing it to vote in committee.
Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the
administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act.
Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose
the lifting of Jackson-Vanik."
John Kerry had good instincts, forced to make bad compromise.
So, Kerry stopped his opposition to the Magnitsky Act.
The two bills were combined. First the bill would be brought up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass Magnitsky, then
it would go before the Finance Committee to repeal Jackson-Vanik, and then, it would go before the full Senate for a vote.
Kerry called for a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2012, with the purpose of approving the Magnitsky
Act.
At the hearing, Kerry said that America was not a perfect country, and that the people in that room should be "very mindful of
the need for the United States not to always be pointing fingers and lecturing and to be somewhat introspective as we think about
these things." (Such nuance would obviously not be allowed today.)
He was "worried about the unintended consequences of requiring that kind of detailed reporting that implicates a broader range
of intelligence." He didn't have to worry. Reporting? Intelligence? Actual evidence would never be required! The U.S. was
setting up a kangaroo court and calling it a human rights tribunal!
The bill passed the House 365 to 43 on November 16, 2012. Voting "No" were 37 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Among them Maxine
Waters and Ron Paul. And surprisingly New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler who since then became a Russophobe. Tulsi Gabbard had not
yet been elected.
Kyle Parker told Browder, "There are a number of senators who are insisting on keeping Magnitsky global instead of Russia-only."
One was Cardin, but also Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan – a political giant who spent many years fighting, holding hearings, about
offshore tax evasion and must have known very well how Browder was a poster child for offshore tax-evading crooks. Also Jon Kyl,
Republican from Arizona. Of course, Browder wanted "Russia only," because the purpose of the law was to attack Russia, not to promote
global human rights. Cardin withdrew his objection, and the bill was "Russia only."
The Senate vote
The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon
Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate.
It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of
the law to see how it is based on the
fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last
day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.)
It was the first pillar of Russiagate, where Cold Warrior Democrats joined forces with Cold Warrior Republicans. The result would
be to build a wall against Russia bringing Browder to justice, including getting Interpol to refuse to issue a red notice that would
require other countries to arrest him. He would name his book Red Notice as a jab at the Russians.
And the crooks Browder and Khodorkovsky, protected from the rule of law, laughed all the way to their offshore banks. Here's the
link to Browder's Mossack Fonseca (on Panama Papers fame) bank.
(Speaking of the rule of law, it doesn't apply to offshore banks, with secret owners of companies and accounts. They are largely
run by western banks that make big profits from laundering the money of the world's crooks. Note on any SEC filing where banks have
their subsidiaries: Caymans, Isle of Man, Guernsey, BVI, etc. No local clients, just financial fakery: letterbox companies, tax evasion.
It's okay. When there's corruption, only the little people go to jail. In the offshore system, the corrupt financial oligarchy rules.)
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
He [Bezos] and people like him are more concerned with maintaining the Dollar as reserve
currency in order to facilitate the continued sell-out of Americans for cheap foreign
manufactured goods, technology sells to China, and their own personal enrichment.
In both cases, the "beef" with Trump is that he's rocking the boat -- both in terms of his
criticism of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama wars for Israel and the Petrodollar, and in terms of
the America First noises he's made. While he's proven to be a fairly reliable Zionist stooge
(although he hasn't started any new wars in the Mideast, and been more of a placeholder), he's
edging a little too close to America First (with his domestic rhetoric and some of his
policies) for comfort.
One of the comments made following Trump's decision to relocate some 12,000 troops from
Germany was made by retired Admiral James ('Zorba') Stavridis, who in 2009-2013 was US Supreme
Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of Nato). He declared
that the action, among other things, "hurts NATO solidarity and is a gift to Putin." This was a
most serious pronouncement, which was echoed
by Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a
rich Republican and
Mormon cleric, who
said the redeployment was a "gift to Russia." These sentiments were well-reported and
endorsed by US media outlets which continue to be relentlessly anti-Russia.
Stavridis is the man who wrote that
the seven-month bombing and rocketing of Libya by the US-Nato military grouping in 2011 "has
rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating
situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive
regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and
space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi."
On June 22 Human Rights Watch noted that
"over the past years" in Libya their investigators have "documented systematic and gross human
rights and humanitarian law violations
by armed groups on all sides, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other acts of
sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced displacement, unlawful killings and
enforced disappearances
." Amnesty International's current Report also
details the chaos in the shattered country where Nato conducted its "model intervention."
The Libya catastrophe illustrates the desperation of Nato in its continuing search for
international situations in which it might be able to intervene, to try to provide some sort of
justification for its existence. And the calibre of its leadership can be judged from the
pronouncements of such as Stavridis, who was unsurprisingly
considered a possibility for the post of Secretary of State by Donald Trump.
It is not explained how relocation of US troops from Germany could hurt Nato's "solidarity"
but Defence Secretary Esper was more revealing about the situation as he sees it, when
interviewed by balanced and
objective Fox News on August 9. He
declared "we basically are moving troops further east, closer to Russia's border to deter
them. Most of the allies I've either spoken to, heard from or my staff has spoken to, see this
as a good move. It will accomplish all of those objectives that have been laid out. And
frankly, look, we still have 24,000 plus troops in Germany, so it will still be the largest
recipient of US troops. The bottom line is the border has shifted as the alliance has grown."
(It is intriguing that this important policy statement was not covered by US mainstream media
and cannot be found on the Pentagon's Newsroom website -- the "one-stop shop for Defense
Department news and information.")
No matter the spin from the Pentagon and what is now appearing in the US media, Trump's July
29 decision to move troops from Germany had no basis in strategy. It was not the result of a
reappraisal of the regional or wider international situation. And it was not discussed with any
of Washington's allies, causing Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg
to say plaintively that it was "not yet decided how and when this decision will be
implemented."
The BBC reported that "President Donald Trump
said the move was a response to Germany failing to meet Nato targets on defence spending."
Trump was quoted as telling reporters that "We don't want to be the suckers anymore. We're
reducing the force because they're not paying their bills; it's very simple." It could not have
been made clearer than that. The whole charade is the result of Trumpian petulance and has
nothing to do with military strategy, no matter what is belatedly claimed by the Pentagon's
Esper.
The German government was not consulted before Trump's contemptuous announcement, and
defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer
criticised Washington, saying "Nato is not a trade organisation, and security is not a
commodity." But so far as Trump is concerned, security is indeed a commodity that can be traded
as he sees fit, irrespective of relevance to national policy or anything other than his
ego.
In trying to pick up the pieces following Trump's candid explanation of his orders to
"reduce the force" in Germany, the Pentagon has conjured up a jumbled but confrontational plan
intended to convince those who are interested (who do not
include the German public), that it is all part of a grand scheme to extend the power of
the US-Nato alliance. To this end, Esper
announced he is "confident that the alliance will be all the better and stronger for it,"
because the redeployment involves reinforcement of the US military in Poland. He is moving 200
staff of the army's 5 corps to Krakow where, as reported by
Military.com on August 5, "In a ceremony Army Chief of Staff General James McConville
promoted John Kolasheski, the Army's V Corps commander, to the rank of lieutenant general and
officially unfurled the headquarters' flag for the first time on Polish soil."
In addition to Washington's move of the advance HQ of V Corps to Krakow, there is a
agreement that Poland will engage in what the Military Times
reports as "a host of construction projects designed to support more US troops in that
country" and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Campbell said that the Warsaw government "has
agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to US forces," which should please the
White House.
These initiatives are part of the US-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
completed on August 3, which Esper
stated "will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and
our forward presence in Poland on NATO's eastern flank will improve our strategic and
operational flexibility." Then on August 15 Secretary of State Pompeo visited Poland to
formally
ink the accord which was warmly welcomed by Polish President Duda who recently visited
Trump in Washington.
Duda's declaration
that "our soldiers are going to stand arm-in-arm" is consistent with the existing situation in
Poland, where the Pentagon has other elements already deployed,
including in Redzikowo, where a base is being built for
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence systems, and the Air Force's 52nd Fighter Wing
detachments at Polish Air Force bases at Lask and Miroslawiec, where there is a unit
operating MQ-9
attack drones.
Defence Secretary Esper has emphasised that "the border has shifted as the alliance has
grown" -- and the border to which he refers is that of US-Nato as it moves more menacingly
eastwards. That's the gift that Trump has given Russia.
"... IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons. ..."
"... Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really? ..."
"... The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of Atlanticism ..."
"There are, then, two ways in which a Biden presidency will remove the Europeans' veil of
smug superiority. First, he will follow some Trump-era objectives, because that is what
American interests demand, thus showing that Trump was no extremist on China . And second,
where he does change approach, he will expose European indifference to the Western Alliance as
driven, not by distaste for Trump's policies, but by Europe's own cynicism, short-termism and
willingness to freeload off US military budgets.
In both respects, Biden's election will reveal Europe's dirty secret. It was never Donald
Trump who stopped the Europeans being their better selves, taking responsibility for the
security of their own citizens, and protecting long-term Western interests. It was always
Europe itself." Nick Timothy in The Telegraph.
------------
I was struck earlier today by English Outsider's admonition (on SST) directed to
ConfusedPonderer (archetype of the Teutons) in which EO said that it was vainglorious and
vacuous to bitterly claim that the US "occupies" Germany as it did in 1945 while at the same
time relying on US funding of Germany's defense through the USA's enormous military
expenditures.
IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary
threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures
for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really?
The US faces a rapidly escalating political crisis. The losing party in November will
undoubtedly go to the federal courts to claim that their opponents cheated in the process.
These charges will eventually reach SCOTUS. In this environment US interest in European affairs
will decline radically.
The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of
Atlanticism. pl
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming
louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the
international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea
imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into
Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the
horizon.
Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor
to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19
is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for
biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for
the world's healthcare systems.
In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of
Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a
mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.
"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for
biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by
humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's
biological defense."
In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed
location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and
not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on
Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus
came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a
decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.
Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with
the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous.
Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and
Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J
entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They
have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military
conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted
their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the
CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei
got going by stealing cisco source code and design. https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best
to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have
an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict
with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their
rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever
the CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye.
Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their
best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News,
and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but
certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one
aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in
Economic power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want
any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare
is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This
means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in
the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the
US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in
Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing
proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western
Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and
the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly
purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect -
China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic
power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars
want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of
warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics.
This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights
in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and
submarines the US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central
Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a
losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific,
western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to
'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq,
Afghanistan and Syria.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students
to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the
U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.
...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in
East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push
comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump
and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality
the speech was.
... ... ...
The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking
about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism."
Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily
in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that
they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its
own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue
and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.
... ... ...
Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference
from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for
a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But,
of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran
or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S.
has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help.
Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies
look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.
Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration
is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an
intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the
behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...
I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word
"China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts
in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".
I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and
Pelosi..) out of their minds government.
We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of
foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not
again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.
It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions
to benefit our citizens.
Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the
Korean Conflict as I recall...
The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they
don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...
You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that
form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations
for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow
been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.
All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems
you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost
the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.
Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy
- this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.
The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign.
Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten
rid of soon enough.
I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads.
Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...
Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will
be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more
of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs
and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any
country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the
Navy or superiority in space yet.
Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar
and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of
trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.
Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting
that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will
change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest
risk possible.
That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the
US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US.
Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with
the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority
of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to
avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.
Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any
other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.
The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was
design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent
the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob
voting for re-distribution...
The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble
wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the
world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening
with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing
economic war that ruins them.
Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.
It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way
of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation
and input is halted.
And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods
we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!
Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and
then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens
to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States
from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie
Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.
Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold.
Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider
conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national
security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our
civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the
Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been
deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new
culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These
facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.
I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.
New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be
a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism,
Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?
During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II,
is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke
political correctness run amok up to the task?
While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All
I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions
of the Han Chinese.
We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic
sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have
been better than this.
I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?
A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we
know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China.
He is just that stupid and evil.
President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China
thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with
that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion:
today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis
is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of
history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
CAIRO (AP) -- Egypt's parliament on Monday authorized the deployment of troops outside the
country, a move that could escalate the spiraling war in Libya after the president threatened
military action against Turkish-backed forces in the oil-rich country.
A troop deployment in Libya could bring Egypt and Turkey, close U.S. allies that support
rival sides in the conflict, into direct confrontation.
"... I seem to recall William "Bill" Browder, AKA "Putin's Number-One Enemy" was briefly detained in Spain on an Interpol warrant or something. ..."
"... And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland: ..."
"... Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is! ..."
"... Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is. ..."
"... The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans. ..."
I think the only Spanish connection it is a convenient location for whatever they were
up to off-shore. We are expected to trust the intelligence services word that
Litvinenko/Skripal/whomever were investigating the 'Russian Mafia' in Spain, so in reality it
could be anything.
What we do know is that Spain signed an updated SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) with the
United States in 2012 (Second Amendment) and 2015 (Third Amendment). Why should this be
linked to UK Russian assets like Litvinenko & Skripal? Because we know that when the
United States wants to do something off the books , i.e. that is techincally illegal
for their citizens to do on their soil, the UK more than happy to oblige (sic. the choice of
Steele's Orbis company in the UK to peddle lies for the Democrats to say that they only lost
the US election because of someone else. Everybody else's fault but not theirs.
And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying
cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland:
Will the Russia report 'follow the money'?
Russia is operating in the UK through "oligarchs" who "spend their money on highly
placed people", according to British investment firm boss Bill Browder.
Browder, the CEO of Hermitage Capital, who gave evidence for the report, told the BBC
said these figures "would basically do intelligence and influence work".
How far will the report delve into the influence of Russian money in British politics?
Although this morning's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) 50-page document is
expected to cover political donations from wealthy Russians, reports suggest it won't
actually name any names.
Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is!
I shouldn't have said that: toads are very useful creatures.
See -- or better: do not, see unless you have a vomit bag near at hand:
UK politics news live: Latest updates as long-awaited Russia report to be released
today | The Independent
Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And
naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only
single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever
although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal
cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is.
The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot
find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that
secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty
sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if
you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts
like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans.
But they
pretend to be fooled. And the best they can come up with is that Russia is behind upsets like
the Black Lives Matter movement which are tearing the USA apart. If Russia always had such a
mysterious weapon, why did it wait so long to use it when the USA and UK spit in its face
every day?
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
The UK will later impose sanctions independently for the first time on dozens of
individuals accused of human rights abuses around the world.
Dominic Raab will name the first violators to have their assets frozen as part of a new
post-Brexit regime.
These are expected to include Russian officials thought to be implicated in the death
of Sergei Magnitsky in 2009.
The whistleblower's maltreatment while in custody has been condemned by the European
Court of Human Rights.
In the past, the UK has almost always imposed sanctions collectively as a member of the
United Nations or European Union but, after its departure from the EU in January, a new
framework is being put in place in UK law .
####
The UK is sanctimonious to a fault. The UK says Magnitsky was a crackerjack tax lawyer and
whistleblower who exposed a gigantic tax fraud by the Russian government. The Russian
government says Magnitsky was a crooked accountant who masterminded a tax-cheat scheme to
help a western crook set up tax shelters and buy Gazprom stock at the price accorded to
nationals only. The UK has been caught in lie after lie after lie, and the scenarios it has
constructed for wrongdoing by Russia on its own soil will barely withstand critical thinking
by alcoholics and farmyard animals. Who's got form here?
By John Ryan, Ph.D . – Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada
If anyone has proven the adage that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it shoes,"
it's Bill Browder. The mega-rich vulture capitalist has been spinning a yarn for years.
Intriguingly, after Germany's leading news magazine kiboshed his fake narrative, Anglo-American media ignored the revelations.
Browder's narrative suits the US/UK establishment as it provides a convenient excuse to sanction Russia, but the story has more
holes than Swiss cheese.
The billionaire vulture capitalist has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back,
Der Spiegel
published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but the US/UK mainstream media failed to follow it up and so,
aside from Germany, few people are aware of Browder's background.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For
a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management
was rated as extremely successful after
earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.
During the corrupt Boris Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US$25 million, Browder
amassed a
fortune. Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006, his Hermitage firm eventually
grew to $4.5 billion.
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities, he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist
and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However,
an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveal contradictions with his statements to the public
and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance,
it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has
revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company, he would resort to lawsuits against this company through
shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse,
the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock to rise -- with the result that Browder's
profits would rise exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky
acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's
companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of the 35 percent that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities
in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in
2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with
two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's
shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009, Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a
failure by
prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge
by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights, which in its ruling on August
27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed
a criminal offence." And as such, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy,
started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to
Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed
by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation
of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch
an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky
is anything but.
Despite Browder's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that
Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical
at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high-level functionaries
in the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past 10 years, Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable
evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated
by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government
and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being
seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with
the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William
Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died
at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive
and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's
this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists.
To further refute his account, a 2011
analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence
he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately
after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has
revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document, D309, states that shortly before Magnitsky's death:
"Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs
were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital, "Magnitsky
exhibited behavior diagnosed as 'acute psychosis' by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained
with handcuffs."
The second document, D310, is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in
D309 has the phrase "special means were" is changed in D310 to "a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title
and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistencies, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310
was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have
been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document
forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic
photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long
assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort
the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.
Despite Magnitsky's death, the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial.
Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include
the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was
closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia
resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is
that in 2003, a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal
purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies
were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who
carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the US, Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei
Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case
got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007, three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million
tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation
organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence, however, that Magnitsky and
Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell
companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan,
owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan
and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Komisar, who said:
According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later
say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal
share purchase schemes.
He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were 'owned' by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which,
in turn, were 'owned' by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund.
He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could
get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.
Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market,
which was restricted for foreign investors.'
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone
Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support
Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder
stated that Russian Interior Ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies
of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old
named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials
had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have
the qualifications to do so. In fact, in 2006, when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an
auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, he claimed Magnitsky
was his lawyer, but in 2015, in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative, in December 2012, he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company,
Prevezon, had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number
of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges
against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel, Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court, so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers
to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge
in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later, while in court and under
oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning
with the following exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible US investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were
based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his
people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case,
Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath, he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact,
to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
(Read the next part of The Real Bill Browder story on Thursday, here on RT)
20 Saudi nationals involved in the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi;
25 Russian nationals involved in the mistreatment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky,
who uncovered widespread corruption;
two high-ranking Myanmar generals involved in violence against Rohingya people and
other ethnic minorities
Two organisations involved in forced labour, torture and murder in North Korea's gulags
have also been listed
The new autonomous regime will allow the UK to work independently with allies such as
the US, Canada, Australia and the EU
####
But not Mohammed Bin Salman, obvs. Those weapons aren't going to sell themselves!
Can the UK government put itself on the list for arbitary detention and expulsion of Brits
born in Jamaica but resident in the UK for decades and asked to come to the UK due to
the shortage of national labor, aka the Windrush scandal? The latest news on that is there is
no automatic redress for those screwed over by Theresa May+. They have to prove they that
they had been unfairly targeted!
'Suspected' killers. That's good enough for sanctions these days. Hopefully the rest of
the EU will take Brexit as an opportunity to break with the Russophobic policies of the loony
UK and its crackpot big brother, and re-orient its economy on a separate trajectory from
theirs. We're already going to end up with two distinct trading blocs who operate largely
outside one another, to the detriment of both but much more so to the United States. We don't
need three. I'm watching in appalled fascination to see what happens to the American airliner
market when it doesn't get any more Chinese orders. Once I would have said it was impossible
that Boeing would go under, but now I'm not so sure.
Speaking of Boeing, no more 747's will be built after the current order backlog is
completed, about 13 more planes. That'll be it for four-engine airliners – too
expensive to run. Twin-engine planes can achieve almost the same range for less outlay. And
economy is going to have to be the watchword of the aviation industry for awhile if it is to
survive: air travel in the USA is down about 80% in the past week. Of course Boeing stock
rose, though, because the investor class lives in a different reality.
I can't help noting that this will mean Boeing will rely even more heavily on the 737.
Danny Sjursen goes undercover in Trumplandia and comes back with this reflection on the U.S.
president's loss of loyalty among soldiers and veterans.
...As both the Covid-19 crisis and the
militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the
imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling
against at home and the two couldn't be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in
part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash
against the pageantry patriots of
Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we'll all face a new and critical
theater in this nation's culture wars. I don't pretend to know whether such protests will last
or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock
star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before
live renditions of his song "Born to Run":
William H Warrick MD , July 10, 2020 at 13:21
oBOMBa destroyed the Anti-War Movement. When he got in the White House all of them began
going to Brunch instead of Peace/Anti-War marches.
"... Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards ..."
"... Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. ..."
"... She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. ..."
"... Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. ..."
"... Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. ..."
"... Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door. ..."
"... Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed ..."
"... Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line. ..."
"... Russian document shows nothing is illegible. ..."
"... Dr. Robert Bux ..."
"... They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR. ..."
"... Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee ..."
"... Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries. ..."
"... closed craniocerebral injury ..."
"... No signs of a violent death detected." ..."
"... Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected ..."
Browder
testimony
to
Senate Judiciary Committee
claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards
.
The U.S. and UK are intensifying their collaborative Cold War against Russia. In Washington, calls for sanctions are based on
the fake "bountygate," and the UK has sanctioned selected Russians based on William Browder's Magnitsky hoax.
The "bountygate" charge that Russia paid militants to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan is unproved by U.S. intelligence
agencies and even discounted by the international wire-tapping National Security Agency (NSA). The UK
sanctions
against
25 Russians, judges and court officials, tax investigators, and prison doctors, are based on disproved claims by billionaire
investor William Browder that they were responsible for the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.
Browder's Magnitsky story is a pillar of America's Russiagate, which has five. Before bountygate, there was the 2019 Mueller
Report which found no evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians, the Jan 2017 intelligence agencies'
charge
of
Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election which concludes with the admission that they had no proof; and the 2016
accusation that Russians had stolen Democratic National Committee emails, made by the private security group CrowdStrike,
later walked back by CrowdStrike's president
Shawn
Henry
at a secret House hearing in Dec 2017, but not revealed till this May.
With the UK, we return to the first pillar of the U.S. Russiagate story, the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which targeted many on the
U.S. list. The Magnitsky Act is recognized as the beginning of the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. It is based on a
hoax invented by Browder and easily disproved by documentary evidence, if governments cared about that.
The European Court of Human Rights on Magnitsky's arrest
First, a few of the obvious fake charges. Three judges are accused of detaining Magnitsky, which the UK says "facilitated" his
mistreatment and denial of medical care. However, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
in
August 2019, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion." The Court said: "The
accusations were based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several
disabled persons who had confessed to sham work for the two companies."
The decision to arrest him was made after "investigating authorities noted that during a tax inquiry which had preceded the
criminal investigation, Mr Magnitskiy had influenced witnesses, and that he had been preparing to flee abroad. In particular,
he had applied for an entry visa to the United Kingdom and had booked a flight to Kyiv." He was a flight risk.
Several of the UK targets were said to have "facilitated" mistreatment of Magnitsky because they had been involved in a fraud
he exposed. The reference is to a $230-million tax refund scam against the Russian Treasury.
Back to the ECHR: "The Court observe[d] that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings
against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent
acts." The taxes were the real story; the fraud narrative was a cover-up.
The fake fraud story
Magnitsky did not uncover a massive fraud. That was the tax refund fraud in which companies engaged in collusive lawsuits,
"lost" the suits, and "agreed" to pay damages equal to their entire year's profits. They then requested a full refund of taxes
paid on the now zero gains. The fake lawsuits and payouts were first revealed to police by Russian shell company director
Rimma Starova
April
9
and
July
10,
2008. (Russian originals
April
and
July
.)
With investigators on the trail, Browder's Hermitage Fund director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the fraud, and Browder
gave the story to The
NYTimes
and
the Russian paper
Vedomosti
,
which published it July 24, 2008, long before Magnitsky mentioned it in October 2008. His
testimony
did
not accuse any officials.
Browder's
Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his
narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it.
She says there has been a
violation of
Article
165
of the criminal code.
Browder translates that into Starova accusing his
companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his
testimony
,
Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.
The main story at the center of the Magnitsky Acts in the U.S. and UK are not that he was mistreated or failed to get good
medical care, which is what is mostly alleged here. That would put dozens of U.S. prison officials in the crosshairs,
including recently those running state prison systems in
Alabama
and
Mississippi
.
It is that he was murdered. In the only reference to beating, the head of the Matrosskaya detention center is accused of
"ordering the handcuffing and beating" of Magnitsky before he died.
The U.S. Act, on which the British version is modeled, says that in detention Magnitsky "was beaten by 8 guards with rubber
batons on the last day of his life." But the alleged assailants' names are not on the list. A key argument made by sponsors
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was that the people targeted – tax investigators, court officials,
hospital workers -- played a role in this claimed murder of Magnitsky. (Cardin and McGovern haven't responded to my requests
to comment on contradictory evidence.)
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab takes the same line, declaring, "You cannot set foot in this country, and we will seize your
blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try," as he announced the new sanctions. Blood-drenched? No evidence supplied for the
sanctioned Russians.
For Browder, the purpose of the Magnitsky Acts he promotes in the West is as a political tool to build a wall against Russia's
attempt to have him answer for documented financial frauds totaling at least $100 million, and with new evidence as much as
$400 million.
The death hoax: Forensic photos tell the truth
Here is the story of Magnitsky death hoax, with links to evidence, including how Browder forged and falsified documents.
Browder had the Russian forensic reports and photos that were made after Magnitsky's death but suppressed what did not support
his arguments. The photos in this forensic
report
show
that Magnitsky, allegedly beaten to death, didn't have a life-threatening mark on his body.
Magnitsky's
body on a cot in the hospital ward.
Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L.
Magnitsky.
Script:
The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door.
Magnitsky
face shoulders on hospital-bed
.
Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.
Browder doctored part of another forensic
report
provided
in translation to the Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Mass., for its
analysis
of
Magnitsky's death. It notes as "illegible" words that show there were no beating marks on Magnitsky's body and that there was
no scalp damage. The deleted parts of the true translation are underlined.
"The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower
extremities,
with pressure on them
with a finger disappear and restore their original color after 8 minutes. Damage
not found on the scalp."
The doctored line reads, "The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck,
trunk, upper and lower extremities, (illegible) not found on the scalp."
Here in the report that Browder gave PHR:
Browder
doctored report claims a section illegible, third line.
The paragraph in the Russian
document
shows
nothing is illegible.
Russian
document shows nothing is illegible.
The Russian words omitted in the doctored English document are "при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено."
The full Russian text can be translated online: Трупные пятна обильные, синюшно-фиолетовые, разлитые, располагающиеся на
задней поверхности шеи, туловища, верхних и нижних конечностей, при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено. Кости лицевого скелета, хрящи
носа на ощупь целы. Глаза закрыты.
What the American pathologist who analyzed Browder's documents said
Dr.
Robert Bux
Dr. Robert C. Bux, then coroner/chief medical examiner for the El Paso County Coroner's Office in Colorado Springs, was the
forensic expert on the team that wrote the PHR
report
.
Bux told me, "I do not think that these spots are contusions. Contusions will not go away and can be demonstrated by incising
or cutting into the tissues under the skin. These are reportedly all on the posterior aspect of the neck, body and limbs and
may represent postmortem
lividity
when
the body was viewed by the prosecutor of the autopsy."
Dr. Bux said, "If this is lividity (red purple coloration of the skin) it is not yet fixed and will blanch to a pale skin
color and red purple coloration will disappear. If the body is then placed face up i.e. supine then after a few minutes then
it will appear again. This is simply due to blood settling in the small blood vessels and a function of gravity."
It's not what a layman reading Browder's forged "illegible" might think.
Dr. Bux added, "Having said all of this, I have never seen any
autopsy photographs demonstrating this, and while photographs should have been taken to document all skin abnormalities as
well as all surfaces of the body to document the presence or absence of trauma, I do not know if photographs were taken and
withheld or never taken
."
PHR said, "A full and independent review of the cause of death of S.L. Magnitsky is not possible given the documentation
presented and available to PHR." The document list is at its report pages
2-3
.
The PHR autopsy protocol claims that there are "photo tables on 2 sheets" and "schematic representation of injuries on 1
sheet. However, if they exist, they were not available for the present review."
They do exist, but Browder did not
give them to PHR.
Browder posted and widely distributed this composite of
photos
of
bruises on Magnitsky's hand and knee taken November 17
th
,
2009, the day after the accountant's death.
Forensic
photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee
He got them from Russian forensic
Report
2052.
Katie
Fisher
,
doing public relations for Hermitage,
posted
them,
but not the text, to Google Cloud.
The report cited "circular abrasions in the wrist area," a "bluish-violet bruise" and "multiple strip-like horizontally
located abrasions."
It said, "A bruise located on the inner surface of the right lower limb in the projection of the ankle joint appeared 3-6 days
before the time death."
It concluded, "[T]hese injuries in living persons do not entail a temporary disability or a significant permanent loss of
general disability and are not regarded as harm to health, they are not in a cause and effect relationship with death."
The forensic reports attribute bruises to Magnitsky wearing handcuffs and kicking and hitting against cell doors. Magnitsky's
lawyer Dmitri Kharitonov
told
filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov, "I think he was simply banging on the door with all his force trying to make them let him out and none paid
attention."
No other injuries found
The same
report
includes
schematic drawings of Magnitsky's body on which to note other relevant marks or injuries.
The report said,
"There were no marks or injuries noted on his head
or torso No other injuries were found on the corpse
" Browder didn't send PHR these drawings or make them public.
Forensic
schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries.
Asked if there was evidence that Magnitsky was "beaten to death by
riot guards," Dr. Bux told me, "I have no evidence to suggest that this occurred."
For the record,
PHR
said
Magnitsky's
death was from untreated serious illness. Even without the body photos, its experts didn't claim a beating. Forensic analysts
never have.
Manipulating the death certificate
To promote his fabrication, Browder posted a deceptive PowerPoint of the death certificate that indicated a
"
closed
craniocerebral injury
?"
circled in red, with the other text too small to
read.
Magnitsky
death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected
"Closed" meant "past." Several forensic documents include an interview with Magnitsky's mother Natalya Magnitskaya. She
told
investigators,
"In 1993 – I can't say a more accurate date, S.L Magnitsky had a craniocerebral injury. He slipped on the street and as a
result hit his head, after which he had headaches for some time."
Investigators obtained full medical records including this on page 29 of
Report
555-10
in English, which Browder gave PHR: "
On February 4, 1993, at about
08:40 a.m.., in his house entrance he slipped and fell down hitting his head, lost consciousness for a short time, vomited,
attended for emergency help by an ambulance which took him to the City Clinic Hospital (GKB).
Was examined by the
neurosurgeon in the reception ward, craniogram without pathema. Diagnosis: brain concussion, recommended treatment to be taken
on an out-patient clinic basis."
Browder's assertion that the "closed craniocerebral injury" came from a beating was a lie.
Browder's changing stories on the death of Magnitsky
Browder did not initially claim Magnitsky had been murdered. He said Magnitsky, left alone uncared for in a room, had simply
died. After a few years, pushing the Magnitsky Act, he declared Magnitsky had been tied up and beaten by rubber baton-wielding
thugs until dead.
Graphic by Michael Thau.
Browder December 2009 tells
Chatham
House
, London, "I don't know what they were thinking. I don't know whether they killed him deliberately on the night of
the 16th, or if he died of neglect."
"They put him in a straight-jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited 1 hour and 18 minutes until he died." December
2010,
San
Diego Law School
.
Then, promoting the Magnitsky Act, "They put him in an isolation cell, tied him to a bed, then allowed eight guards guards
beat him with rubber batons for 118 min until he was dead." December 2011,
University
of Cambridge
Judge Business School.
" .they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons.
That night he was found dead on the cell floor." July 2017, U.S.
Senate
Judiciary Committee
.
What the Moscow Public Oversight Commission says really happened
The
Public
Oversight Commission
, an independent Russian NGO, reports Magnitsky's final day differently. November 16, 2009:
7:00pm. The patient behaves inadequately. Talks to a "voice," looks disorientated, and shouts that someone wants to kill him.
His condition is diagnosed as psychosis. The emergency doctor was called. There are no body damages apart from traces of
handcuffs on the wrists.
7:30pm. He was left unattended without medical support.
8:48pm. Emergency team arrived. When emergency doctors entered the special cell, Sergei was sitting on the cot, with his eyes
unfocused.
9:15pm. The patient was surveyed again as his condition deteriorated. He lost consciousness. The reanimation procedure was
started (indirect heart massage and ventilation of lungs using the Ambu pillow). The patient was transferred to the special
room where he received an artificial ventilation of lungs and a hormones injection.
9:50pm. The patient died."
The commission reported no evidence of beating. The Russian forensic and medical experts' conclusion was that Magnitsky had
heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, hepatitis, and pancreatitis, some illnesses predating arrest. They wrote detailed
criticism of the doctors' treatment, saying that it wasn't timely or adequate and that "the shortcomings in the provision of
the medical assistance to S.L. Magnitsky" caused his death.
But it's not the riot squad beating Browder, with no evidence, sold to the U.S. Congress, the State Department, the UK
Parliament, the Foreign Office and the media. Or that U.S. or UK authorities or media ever attempted to prove. Because like
the Tonkin Gulf "incident" and Iraq's WMD, the weaponized Russiagate stories have a foreign/military policy goal. Truth is
quite irrelevant.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint
Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal
incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make
up its mind.
For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's
attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated
concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his
administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.
The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish
but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in
Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy
and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.
Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his
first term with a difficult
reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence
suggesting Russia
was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on
their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.
The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but
his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been
aware.
The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe
meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning
former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe
and the United States with disinformation and election interference .
Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including
Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO
alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the
continent.
But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential
friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may
share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.
Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between
pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have
raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national
security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level
officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their
positions.
Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his
opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be
friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of
impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the
campaign illegally conspired with Russia.
Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with
the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those
findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in
Helsinki .
Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most
significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.
Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control
treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine
despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to
prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties
believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.
At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or
redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance
defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that
Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in
Afghanistan.
On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated,
he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the
objections of the other members.
White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious
inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed
demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in
its ability to create chaos.
The organisers projected an image of the cover of the Russian Constitution against the
background of Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and the inscription "1993. It was yours " Then
there is an image of the Russian people and the message "2020. It will be ours!", followed by
a call to come to vote, was projected on the building of the US Embassy. The light projection
was organised by the art group "Re:Venge".
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-russian-constitution-was-projected-onto-the-us-embassy-building-in-moscow/
Ha, I really like this one ! Would have loved to watch 'das dumme Gesicht' (something like
>>stupid face<< but stronger. like the Germans say) of the latest Trump's edition
of silly ambassadors, lol !!!
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s
INDEPENDENT
It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could
possibly justify a clickbait title like that.
I suspect that the rest of the article is just
going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively
say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?
FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no
reinstatement on horizon.
FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large
commercial relationship w/Germany.
What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be
made by just about anyone.
Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia
has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is
'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
Interesting history Browder has. I suspect he has a history with Putin before Putin became
President , but its hard to find anything on a connection. Anyways lots of interesting
connections, meaningful or not, I cant say.
[Hide MORE]
1985 - bugged version of PROMIS was sold for Soviet government use, with the media mogul
Robert Maxwell as a conduit.
1990 - just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Browder found himself on assignment in
Poland for Boston Consulting Group. The government had begun privatizing state-owned
companies and selling their shares at ridiculously low valuations.
1991 - Anatoly Sobchak, a former law professor of Putin's at Leningrad State, became mayor
of Leningrad.* Sobchak hired Vladimir Putin, whom he had known when Putin worked at Leningrad
State. Putin was still on active reserve with the KGB.
Putin's tenure in Sobchak's office was so rife with scandal that it led to a host of
investigations into illegal assignment of licenses and contracts . Putin was head of the
Committee for Foreign Liaison; collaborated with criminal gangs in regulating gambling; a
money-laundering operation by the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company, where Kumarin
was involved and Putin served on the advisory board; Putin's role in providing a monopoly for
the Petersburg Fuel Company, then controlled by the Tambov criminal organization; and much,
much more -- virtually all of which was whitewashed. While he was in St. Petersburg in the
nineties, Putin signed many hundreds of contracts doling out funds to his cronies.
1991 - November 5, Robert Maxwell, allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the
Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Billions were missing from his pension
funds
Maxwell's investment bankers included Salomon Brothers. Eventually, the pension funds were
replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as
the British government.
It was March 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell
as his "investment manager". Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did
Browder participate as an investment manager?
1991 November 10, Maxwell's funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the
resting place for the nation's most revered heroes. Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has
done more Israel than can today be said."
1992 - Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the Salomon
Brothers in the middle of their own scandal. Browder was put in charge of the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers. He was given 25 million to invest and used
it by paying cash for vouchers in Russian companies the government had issued to citizens ,
and used them to buy shared at public auction. In a short period he turned that into 125
million
The scandal at Salomon Brothers was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back
then.After that scandal where the government was threatening to shut down Salomon Brothers
who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people
from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
1996-Browder left Salomon Brothers and with Edmond Safra founded Hermitage Capital
Management for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during
the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz was
another of the original investors in Hermitage, the Israeli diamond billionaire.
Cyprus is a favorite place for Russian to launder money. Thats probably why Browder and
his accounting advisor Jamison Firestone chose it to launder Browder's Russian profits.
Browder from about 1997 to the mid-2000s used Cyprus shell companies to move money out of
Russia to cheat the country of multi-millions of dollars in taxes. He used the Russian shells
to invest in shares, including Gazprom shares that were illegal for foreigners to buy in
Russia, then moved the shares to Cyprus shells
1996 article entitled, "The Money Plane," published by New York Magazine detailed how the
"Russian mob gets a shipment of up to a billion dollars in fresh $100 bills," Edmond Safra's
bank, Republic National, was directly implicated.
Guess we know where Browder got the cash money to pay for the vouchers
1998 - If Salomon had not been merged with Travelers Group in 1997 (which owned retail
brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998
Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – Salomons John
Meriwether.
Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over
Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for
sale to HSBC in 1999.
1999 - Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, despite significant outflows from
the fund, Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999
when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian:
ВСМПО-АВИСМА) – the
world's largest titanium producer - filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma
investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into
offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays.
Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares
as part of the confidential settlement agreement.
1999 - Republican National Bank was owned by Safra . On May 11, HSBC, announced a $10.3
billion deal to purchase Edmond Safra's holdings including the Republic National Bank of New
York and Safra's shares in Bill Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital. The announcement came only
nine months after Russia's economy collapsed and Browder's clients, lost over $900 million.
It was also nine months after $4.8 billion in IMF funds was deposited in an undisclosed
account at Safra's bank and well before the public became aware that that same money was
dispersed and stolen through the Bank of New York, off-shore companies, and foreign financial
institutions.
HSBC then became Browders partner of the Heritage Fund . Browder's shell companies were
registered in Cyprus but owned by HSBC (Guernsey) as the trustee for his Hermitage Capital
Management.
Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network "owned" by an HSBC
Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks
and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown.
Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and
listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner
Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
1999 December 3 - Safra was killed in suspicious fire that broke out in his Monte Carlo
home. Although some believe that Safra was killed by the Russian mafia, Lurie reported that a
Swiss prosecutor investigating the missing IMF money believed that Safra was killed "because
of his revelations to the FBI and the Swiss Prosecutor's Office investigating the
disappearance and laundering of $4.8 billion of the IMF stablilization loan." One of the more
interesting things to note here is that the prosecutor implied that Safra not only spoke with
the FBI about the missing IMF funds but with Swiss authorities as well.
Funny how Browders bosses/partners get killed
1999 - the bombings that killed nearly three hundred innocent Russians were likely the
product of a "false flag" operation that enabled Putin to consolidate power.
Putin promised to stop the plundering of the Russian state by rich oligarchs. But very few
Russians knew that Putin had been a primary actor in the same kind of activity in St.
Petersburg. And as for cleaning up corruption, one of Putin's first acts as president was to
pardon Boris Yeltsin, thereby guaranteeing immunity from prosecution to the outgoing
president.-
Putin recruited two oligarchs who were among his closest confidants, Roman Abramovich and
Lev Leviev, to undertake the highly unlikely mission of creating a new religious organization
called the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Rabbi Berel
Lazar, a leader in the Hasidic movement called Chabad-Lubavitch.
Founded in the late eighteenth century, the tiny, Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitcher
movement is a fundamentalist Hasidic sect centered on the teaching of the late Rabbi Menachem
Schneerson, who is sometimes referred to as a messiah -- moshiach -- a savior and liberator
of the Jewish people. It is antiabortion, views homosexuality as a perversion, and often
aligns itself politically with other fundamentalist groups on the right.
Its biggest donors included Leviev, an Israeli billionaire who was an Uzbek native and was
known as the "King of Diamonds" thanks to his success in the diamond trade, and Charles
Kushner, an American real estate developer who was later jailed for illegal campaign
contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner is also the father of Jared
Kushner, who married Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and later became a senior adviser to
President Trump. Leviev's friendship with Lazar dates back to 1992 and, according to Haaretz,
made Leviev "the most influential, most active and most connected person in the Jewish
community of Russia and made Lazar the country's chief rabbi."
Roman Abramovich, controlled the trading arm of one of Russia's largest oil companies
through an Isle of Man company that had figured in the Bank of New York affair. Mr.
Abramovich ran the Siberian oil giant Sibneft, which sold its oil through a company called
Runicom.
His name emerged after speculation that Swiss investigators were looking into the role of
Runicom as part of the widening investigation into the laundering of up to $15 billion of
Russian money through American banks. Runicom is owned by at least two offshore companies set
up by the Valmet Group, a financial services concern partly owned by Menatep, a failed
Russian bank that used the Bank of New York."
2001- Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) collapses. Tenants include the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
2005 - Steinmetz of Browders Heritage Fund teamed up with another diamond magnate, Putins
buddy Lev Leviev, to purchase the top ten floors of Israel's Diamond Tower which also houses
the Israeli Diamond Exchange. Haaretz.com reported that "the buyers intend to build a
connector from the 10 floors – the top 10 floors of the building – to the diamond
exchange itself in order to benefit from the security regime of the other offices within the
exchange." And benefit they did.
According to one website reporting on a Channel 10 (Israel) news story, from 2005 –
2011, an "underground" bank was set up to provide "loans to firms using money taken from
other companies while pretending it was legally buying and selling diamonds." The bank
apparently washed over $100 million in illicit funds over the course of six years and both
Steinmetz and Leviev were directly implicated as "customers" of the bank but Neither of them
were charged in the case.
Then there's HSBC's involvement in the diamond industry and Leviev's ties not only to arms
dealer Arcadi Gaydamak via Africa-Israeli Investments but Roman Abramovich and Kushner
2007 - Browders Hermitage Capital Management, was raided by Russian interior ministry
officers, who confiscated stamps and documents. These were then used to file bogus tax
returns to the Russian Treasury, which were paid out to bank accounts controlled by Klyuev
and his associates, according to the U.S. government.
Browder claimed Organized crime carried out the tax refund fraud against the Russian
Treasury under which criminals used collusive lawsuits to fake damages and get refunds of
company taxes. The tax refund fraud using Browder's companies netted $230 million.
2008 - HSBC (Guersey) director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the tax refund fraud in
July on behalf of Hermitage (after Starova's complaints) .
Maginitsky was arrested for being the accountant (not a lawyer) of Browder's tax evasion
schemes.
2008 - A lawsuit alleged Bayrock's projected profits were "to be laundered, untaxed
through a sham Delaware entity" to the FL Group, Iceland's largest private investment fund,
the first major firm to collapse in 2008 when Iceland's financial bubble burst, and a favored
financial instrument for loans to Russia-connected oligarchs who were, court papers claim, in
favor with Vladimir Putin. According to Bloomberg, Eva Joly, who assisted Iceland's special
prosecutor in the investigation of the financial collapse, said, "There was a huge amount of
money that came into these banks that wasn't entirely explained by central bank lending. Only
Mafia-like groups fill a gap like that."
Another significant Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal,
Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the commodities trader who was
tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's gang in
Brighton Beach.
In addition to being wired into the Kremlin, Sapir's son-in-law, Rotem Rosen, was a
supporter of Chabad along with Sater, Sapir, and others at Bayrock, and, as a result, was
part of an extraordinarily powerful channel between Trump and Putin. After all, the ascent of
Chabad in Russia had been part of Putin's plan to replace older Jewish institutions in Russia
with corresponding organizations that were loyal to him.
The biggest contributor to Chabad in the world was Leviev, the billionaire "King of
Diamonds" who had a direct line to Rabbi Berel Lazar, aka "Putin's rabbi," to Donald Trump,
and to Putin himself dating back to the Russian leader's early days in St. Petersburg.
Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to Chabad of Port Washington, Long Island, was
Bayrock founder Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh-born Turk with a Muslim name who was not Jewish, but
nonetheless won entry into its Chai Circle as a top donor.
2013-The Hermitage Fund, an HSBC-backed vehicle that invested in Russia and became
embroiled in a diplomatic war with the Kremlin over the death of one of its accountants,
closes down..
2014, Vekselberg's Renova Group became a partner with Wilbur Ross in the takeover of the
Bank of Cyprus, which had held billions in deposits from wealthy Russians.
Back in early 90's Trump found himself in financial trouble when his three casinos in
Atlantic City were under foreclosure threat from lenders. He was bailed-out by senior
managing director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Wilbur Ross, who Trump would later appoint
as Secretary of Commerce. Ross, who is known as the "King of Bankruptcy," specializes in
leveraged buyouts of distressed businesses.
Along with Blackstones Carl Icahn, Ross convinced bondholders to strike a deal with Trump
that allowed Trump to keep control of the casinos.
By the mid-1990s, Ross was a prominent figure in New York Democratic Party politics and
had caught the attention President Bill Clinton who appointed him to lead the U.S.-Russia
Investment Fund.
2015 - Donald Trump, after emerging from a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies,
and $ 4 billion in debt, had risen from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its
alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said
Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor
2015 - Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times
building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israeli-Russian oligarch Leviev's company,
Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which
has also been linked to Russian money laundering,
Jared and Ivanka were also close to another of Putins oligarchs, Roman Abramovich and his
wife, Dasha Zhukova.
2015-While Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, the bank's
Russia-based businesses were sold to a Russian banker and consultant, Artem Avetisyan, who
had ties to both the Russian president and Russia's largest bank, Sberbank. At the time,
Sberbank was under US and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Avetisyan had earlier been selected by Putin to head a new business branch of the Russian
president's strategic initiative agency, which was tasked with improving business and
government ties.
Avetisyan's business partner, Oleg Gref, is the son of Herman Gref, Sberbank's chief
executive officer, and their consultancy has served as a "partner" to Sberbank, according to
their website. Ross had described the Russian businesses – including 120 bank branches
in Russia – as being worth "hundreds of millions of euros" in 2014 but they were sold
with other assets to Avetisyan for €7m (£6m).
Ross resigned from the Bank of Cyprus board after he was confirmed as commerce secretary
in 2017
2018 - Cyprus suspended cooperation with Russia, which had been seeking assistance from
the government in Moscow's alleged case of tax evasion against Hermitage Capital Founder Bill
Browder.
William "Bill" Browder has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past
decade. A few months back, Der Spiegel published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky
but the mainstream media completely ignored this report and so aside from Germany few people
are aware of Browder's background and the Magnitsky issue which resulted in sanctions on
Russia.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies
by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow
investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For a time, it was the
largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management was rated as extremely
successful after earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December
2007.
During the corrupt Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US $25 million, Browder
amassed a fortune . Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to
2006 his Hermitage firm eventually grew to $4.5 billion .
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities he portrayed
himself as an anti-corruption activist and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act,
which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However, an examination of
Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveals contradictions with his
statements to the public and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking
corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian
companies to adopt Western-style governance, it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized
companies he was targeting for takeover.
Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in
a company he would resort to lawsuits against this company through shell companies he
controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To
prevent its collapse the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it,
causing its stock market to rise -- with the result that Browder's profits would rise
exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant
Magnitsky acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft
and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5%
instead of the 35% that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign
companies and citizens from purchasing equities in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this
and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in 2008.
Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and
charged by Russian prosecutors with two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in
conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's shell
companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009 Magnitsky died in pre-trial
detention because
of a failure by prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest
and death were a targeted act of revenge by Russian authorities against a heroic
anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was
challenged by the European Court of Human Rights who in its ruling on August 27, 2019
concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable
suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence." And as such "The Russians had good
reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal
proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that
prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable
activities, Browder had been refused entry to Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly
his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities,
accusing them of corruption and violation of human rights. The death of his accountant and
auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch an
international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption
whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky is anything but.
Despite Brower's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic
documents
and testimonies show that Magnitsky
died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a
gallstone condition. It was negligence typical at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a
premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high level functionaries in
the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past ten years Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by
prison guards. Without any verifiable evidence
he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18
minutes. This was never corroborated by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even
denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to
discredit and vilify Russia and its government and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying
beliefs and assumptions are being seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an
American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I
revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei
Magnitsky, William Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he
was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos
were taken the next day.
Later in her report she states:
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen
U.S. media – both allegedly progressive and mainstream -- have refused to publish this
information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was
beaten to death with rubber batons. It's this narrative that has attracted the attention of the
US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists. To further refute his
account, a 2011 analysis by the
Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder
found no evidence he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian
documents. They were compiled immediately after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009.
Recent investigative research has revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The
first document D309 states that shortly before Magnitsky's death: "Handcuffs were used in
connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the
handcuffs were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a
forensic review states that while in the prison hospital "Magnitsky exhibited behavior
diagnosed as "acute psychosis" by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr.
Magnitsky to be restrained with handcuffs."
The second document D310 is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the
preceding sentence. The sentence in D309 has the phrase "special means were" is
changed in D310 to " a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no
sense whatsoever, given the title and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistences,
including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310 was copied from D309 and
that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical
reports to have been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of
knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document forms a major basis for Browder's
claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a
baton attack, combined with forensic photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show
no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long assertions
that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains
mistakes and inconsistencies that distort the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's
death.
Despite Magnitsky's death the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty
of corruption in a posthumous trial. Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate
alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include the accountant
Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case
against Magnitsky was closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign
insisting that his departure from Russia resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However,
the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is that in 2003 a
Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition,
his illegal purchases of shares in
Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies were reportedly valued at another $30
million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went
after Magnitsky, the accountant who carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the USA Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished
his tale by asserting that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one
of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case got more involved, he presented a
convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be
presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007 three shell companies that had once been owned by
Browder were used to claim a $232 million tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses.
Browder has stated that the
companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation organized by a convicted
fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence however that
Magnitsky and Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this
firm were a large number of shell companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some
in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan, owned by Americans, did
the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for
Firestone Duncan and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was
interviewed in 2017 by Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist, who was doing research on
Browder's operations in Russia. In the ensuing report on this , Komisar states:
"According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure
that Russian investigators would later say was used for tax evasion and illegal share
purchases by Hermitage. . .
the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal share purchase schemes.
"He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were "owned" by
Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which, in turn, were "owned" by an HSBC Private Bank
Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. He said the
structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along
the way. Profits could get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and
HSBC.
"Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy
Gazprom shares in the local market, which was restricted for foreign investors.'"
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the
offices of Hermitage and Firestone Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers
and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support Russian charges of
tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a
statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder stated that Russian interior ministry
officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies of
the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest
Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the
purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He
had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have the qualifications to do so. In fact in 2006 when
questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 he claimed Magnitsky was his lawyer, but in 2015 in his
testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative , in December 2012 he presented documents to the New York District
Attorney alleging that a Russian company Prevezon had "benefitted from part of the $230 million
dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number of luxury apartments
in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed
money-laundering charges against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based
lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel , Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court
so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to
accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge in the Prevezon
case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later
while in court and under oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally
evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning with the following
exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law
degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible U.S. investigator admitted
during questioning that his findings were based exclusively on statements and documents from
Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his people managed
to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that
launched the court case, Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when
questioned under oath he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact, to almost every question put
forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
The case finally ended in May 2017 when the two sides reached a settlement. Denis Katsyv,
the company's sole shareholder, on a related matter agreed to pay nearly six million dollars to
the US government, but would not have to admit any wrongdoing. Also the settlement contained an
explicit mention that neither Katsyv nor his company Prevezon had anything to do with the
Magnitsky case. Afterwards, one of Katsyv's, lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya, exclaimed: "For
the first time, the U.S. recognized that the Russians were in the right!"
A major exposé of the Browder-Russia story is presented in a film that came out in
June 2016 The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the well-known independent filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov .
Reference to this film will be made later but to provide a summary of the Browder tax evasion
case some critical information can be obtained from
a report by Eric Zuesse , an investigative historian, who managed to get a private viewing
of the film by the film's Production Manager.
In the film Nekrasov proceeds to unravel Browder's story, which was designed to conceal his
own corporate responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted
story collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the
fraud who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his
medical condition. The film cleverly allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight
of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.
Following the raid by tax officials on the Moscow Hermitage office on June 2, 2007, nothing
further on these matters was reported until April 9, 2008 when Ms Rimma Starlova, the
figurehead director of the three supposedly stolen Browder shell companies, filed a criminal
complaint with the Russian Interior Ministry in Kazan accusing representatives of Browder
companies of the theft of state funds, i.e., $232 million in a tax-rebate fraud. Although
Hermitage was aware of this report they kept quiet about it because they claimed it as a false
accusation against themselves.
On September 23, 2008, there was a news report about a theft of USD 232 million from the
Russian state treasury, and the police probe into it. On October 7, 2008, Magnitsky was
questioned by tax investigators about the $232 million fraud because he was the accountant for
Browder's companies.
The central issue was that during September of 2007 three of Browder's shell companies had
changed owners and that afterwards fraud against Russian treasury had been conducted by the new
owners of these companies.
According to Magnitsky the way that ownership changed was through powers of attorney. This
is a matter that Browder never mentioned. The Nekrasov film shows a document: "Purchase
agreement based on this power of attorney, Gasanov represents Glendora Holdings Ltd."
Glendora Holdings is another shell company owned by Browder. This shows that Gasanov, the
middleman, had the power of attorney connecting the new nominees to the real beneficiaries.
However, Gasanov could not be questioned on whose orders he was doing this because shortly
afterwards, he mysteriously died. No one proved that it was murder, but if that death was a
coincidence, it wasn't the only one.
During September 2007 the three Hermitage shell companies, Rilend, Parfenion and Mahaon,
were re-registered by Gasanov to a company called Pluton that was registered in Kazan, and
owned by Viktor Markelov, a Russian citizen with a criminal record. Markelov through a series
of sham arbitration judgments conducted fake lawsuits that demanded damages for alleged
contract violations. Once the damages were paid, in December 2007 the companies filed for tax
refunds that came to $232 million. These were taxes that had been paid by these companies in
2006.
On February 5, 2008 the Investigative Committee of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office
opened a criminal case to investigate the fraud committed by Markelov and other
individuals.
Markelov had hired a Moscow lawyer, Andrey Pavlov, to conduct these complex operations.
Afterwards Pavlov was questioned by Russian authorities and revealed what had happened.
Markelov was convicted and
sentenced to five years for the scam . At his trial Markelov testified that he was not in
possession of the $232 million tax refund and that he did not know the identity of the client
who would benefit from the refund scheme. And till this day no one knows! However, Russian tax
authorities suspect it is William Browder.
At his trial, Markelov testified that one of the people he worked with to secure the
fraudulent tax refund was Sergei Leonidovich. Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich
Magnitsky. Also when questioned by the police, Markelov named Browder's associates Khairetdinov
and Kleiner as people involved in the company's re-registration.
So this provides evidence that Magnitsky and Browder's other officials were involved in the
re-registration scheme – which Browder later called theft. In his film Nekrasov states
that Browder's team had set things up to look as if outsiders -- not Browder's team -- had
transferred the assets.
According to Nekrasov's film documentation, Russian courts have established that it was the
representatives of the Hermitage investment fund who had themselves voluntarily re-registered
the Makhaon, Parfenion and Rilend companies in the name of other individuals, a fact that Mr
Browder is seeking to conceal by shifting the blame, without any foundation, onto the law
enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
Indeed there is cause to be skeptical of the Browder narrative, and that the fraud was in
fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court has
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December 2013 that Browder had
deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. On the basis of this he was
sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.
In the meantime, over all these years, Browder has maintained and convinced the public at
large that the $232 million fraud against the Russian treasury had been perpetrated by
Magnitsky's interrogators and Russian police. With respect to the "theft" of his three
companies (or "vehicles as he refers to them) on September 16, 2008
he stated on his Hermitage website : "The theft of the vehicles was only possible using
the vehicles' original corporate documents seized by the Moscow Interior Ministry in its raid
on Hermitage's law firm in Moscow on 4 June 2007."
As such, Browder is accusing Russian tax authorities and police for conducting this entire
fraudulent operation.
In his film Nekrasov says that the Browder version is: "Yes, the crime took place [$232
million fraud against the public treasury but, according to Browder, actually against Browder's
firm], but somebody else did it -- the police did it."
In this convoluted tale, it should be recalled that the fraud against the Russian treasury
had first been reported to the police by Rimma Starlova on April 9, 2008. This had been
recorded on the Hermitage website. In preparing the material for his film, Nekrasov noted
that
"In March 2009, Starlova's report disappeared from Hermitage's website. . . . This is the
same time that Magnitsky started to be treated as an analyst . . . who discovered the $232
million fraud. Thus the Magnitsky-the-whistleblower story was born, almost a year after the
matter had been reported to the police."
Nekrasov's film also undermines the basis of Browder's case that Magnitsky had been killed
by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov, but this is
questionable since documents show Magnitsky had not accused anyone. As Nekrasov states in the
film: "The problem is, he [Magnitsky] made no accusations. In that testimony, its record
contains no accusations. Mr. Magnitsky did not actually testify against the two officers
[Karpov and Kuznetsov]." So this factual evidence should destroy Browder's accusations.
It should be noted Magnitsky's original interview with authorities was as a suspect, not a
whistleblower. Also contradicting Browder's claims, Nekrasov notes that Magnitsky does not even
mention the names of the police officers in a key statement to authorities.
In his film Nekrasov includes an interview that he had with Browder regarding the issues
about Magnitsky. Nekrasov confronts Browder with the core contradictions of his story.
Incensed, Browder rises up and threatens the filmmaker:
" Anybody who says that Sergei Magnitsky didn't expose the crime before he was arrested
is just trying to whitewash the Russian Government. Are you trying to say that Pavel Karpov is
innocent? I'd really be careful about your going out and saying that Magnitsky wasn't a
whistleblower. That's not going to do well for your credibility." Browder then walks off in
a huff.
Nekrasov claims to be especially struck that the basis of Browder's case -- that Magnitsky
had been killed by the police because he had accused two police officials, Karpov and Kuznetsov
-- is a lie because there is documentary evidence that Magnitsky had not accused anyone.
Because of Browder's accusations, Nekrasov interviewed Pavel Karpov, the police officer who
Browder accused of being involved in Magnitsky's alleged murder, despite the fact that Karpov
was not on duty the day Magnitsky died.
Karpov presents Nekrasov with documents that Browder's case was built on. These original
documents are actually fundamentally different from the way Browder had described them. This
documentary evidence further exposes Browder's story for what it is.
Nekrasov asks Karpov why Browder wants to demonize him. Karpov explains that he had pursued
Browder in 2004 for tax evasion, so that seems to be the reason why Browder smears him. And
then Karpov says, "Having made billions here, Browder forgot to tell how he did it. So it
suits him to pose as a victim. He is wanted here, but Interpol is not looking for him."
Afterwards in 2013, Karpov had tried to sue Browder for libel in a London court, but was not
able to on the basis of procedural grounds since he was a resident of Russia and not the UK.
However at the conclusion of the case, set out in his Judgment the presiding judge,
Justice Simon, made some interesting comments.
"The causal link which one would expect from such a serious charge is wholly lacking; and
nothing is said about torture or murder. In my view these are inadequate particulars to
justify the charge that the Claimant was a primary or secondary party to Sergei Magnitsky's
torture and murder, and that he would continue to commit or 'cause' murder, as pleaded in
§60 of the Defence.
The Defendants have not come close to pleading facts which, if proved, would justify the
sting of the libel."
In other words – in plain English – in the judge's view, Karpov was not in any
sense party to Magnitsky's death, and Browder's claim that he was is not valid.
On the basis of the evidence that has been presented, it is undeniable that Browder's case
appears to be a total misrepresentation, not only of Magnitsky's statements, but of just about
everything else that's important in the case .
On a separate matter, on April 15, 2015 in a New York court
case involving the US government and a Russian company, Previzon Holdings, Bill Browder had
been ordered by a judge to give a deposition to Prevezon's lawyers.
Throughout this deposition, Browder (now under oath) contradicted virtually every aspect of
his Magnitsky narrative and stated "I don't recall" when pressed about key portions of his
narrative that he had previously repeated unabashedly in his testimonies to Congress and
interviews with Western media. Browder "remembered nothing" and could not even deny asking
Magnitsky to take responsibility for his (Browder's) crimes.
As a further example of Browder's dishonesty, in one of his publications, he shows a photo
of an alleged employee of Browder's law firm, Firestone Duncan, named "Victor Poryugin" with
vicious facial wounds from allegedly being tortured and beaten by police. However, the person
shown was never with Browder's firm. Instead, this is a photo of "an American human rights
campaigner beaten up during a street protest in 1961." It was Jim Zwerg, civil-rights
demonstrator, during the 1960s, in the American South. Nekrasov was appalled and found it
almost unimaginable that Browder would switch photos like that to demonize Russia and its
police.
Browder
was arrested by the Spanish policein June 2018. Even though Russia has on six occasions
requested Browder's arrest through Interpol for tax fraud, the Spanish national police
determined that Browder had been detained in error because the international warrant was no
longer valid and released him.
A further matter that reflects on his character, William Browder, the American-born
co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management is now a British citizen. The US taxes offshore
earnings, but the UK does not. Highly likely because of this, in 1998 he gave up his American
citizenship and became a British citizen and thereby has avoided paying US taxes on foreign
investments. Nevertheless, he still has his family home in Princeton, NJ and also
owns a $11 million dollar vacation home in Aspen, Colorado.
To put this in political context, Browder's narrative served a strong geopolitical purpose
to demonize Russia at the dawn of the New Cold War. As such, Browder played a major role in
this. In fact, the late celebrated American journalist Robert
Parry thought that Browder single-handedly
deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War.
Browder's campaign was so effective that in December 2012 he exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia, and as a result the US Congress passed a bipartisan bill, the
Magnitsky Act, which was then signed by President Obama. U.S. Senators Ben Cardin and John
McCain were instrumental in pushing through the Magnitsky Act, based on Browder's
presentations.
However, key parts of the argument that passed into law in this act have been shown to be
based on fraud and fabrication of 'evidence.' This bill
blacklisted Russian officials who were accused of being involved in human-rights
abuses.
"A problem with the Magnitsky Act is that there is no due process. The targets are not
told the evidence against them, they cannot challenge accusations or evidence in a court of
law in order to get off the list. This "human rights law" violates the rule of law. There is
an International Court with judges and lawyers to deal with human rights violators, but the
US has not ratified its jurisdiction. Because it does not want to be subject to the rules it
applies to others."
In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enables the U.S. to impose
sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide.
In a move that history will show to be ill-advised, on October 18, 2017 Canada's Parliament
and Senate
unanimously approved Bill 226, a 'Magnitsky Act.' It mimics the US counterpart and targets
Russia for further economic sanctions. Russia
immediately denounced Canada's actions as being counter-productive, pointless and
reprehensible. Actually an act of this type had been opposed by Stéphane Dion while he
was Canada's minister of foreign affairs because he viewed it as a needless provocation against
Russia.
Dion also stated that adoption of a 'Magnitsky Act' would hurt the interests of Canadian
businesses dealing with Russia and would thwart Canada's attempt's to normalize relations with
Russia. However, Dion was replaced by Chrystia Freeland who immediately pushed this through.
This is not surprising considering her well-documented Nazi family
background and who is persona non grata in Russia.
A version of the Magnitsky Act was enacted in the UK and the Baltic republics in 1917.
In early 2020 a proposal to enact a version of the Magnitsky Act was presented to the
Australian parliament and it is still under consideration. There has been considerable
opposition to it including a
detailed report by their Citizens Party, which exposes the full extent of Browder's fraud
and chicanery.
The investigation into Browder's business activities in Russia is still an ongoing
endeavour. On October 24, 2017 the
Russian Prosecutor
General , Yuri Chaika, requested the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a probe
into alleged tax evasion by Bill Browder, who in 2013 had already been sentenced in absentia to
9 years in prison in Russia for a similar crime.
Browder at that time was still being tried in Russia for suspected large-scale money
laundering, also in absentia. Chaika added that Russian law enforcement possesses information
that over $1 billion was illegally transferred from the country into structures
connected with Bill Browder.
The Prosecutor General also asked Sessions to reconsider the Magnitsky Act. As he put
it,
" from our standpoint, the act was adopted for no actual reason, while it was lobbied by
people who had committed crimes in Russia. In our view, there are grounds to claim that this
law lacks real foundation and that its passing was prompted by criminals' actions."
It's not known if Sessions ever responded to the Russian Prosecutor General. In any event,
President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions on November 7, 2018. As such it's evident
that Russia's concerns about Browder's dishonest activities are stymied.
Extensive reference has already been made to the film that came out in June 2016 The
Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes by the independent filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov . When Nekrasov started the film
he had fully believed Browder's story but as he delved into what really happened, to his
surprise, he discovered that the case documents and other incontrovertible facts revealed
Browder to be a fraud and a liar. The ensuing film presents a powerful deconstruction of the
Magnitsky myth, but because of Browder's political connections and threats of lawsuits, the
film has been
blacklisted in the entire "free world." So much for the "free world's" freedom of the press
and media. This film is not available on YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/oJsWUlkjN6Gf/
The documentary was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016,
but at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians
cancelled the showing.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed.
Despite the frantic attempts by Browder's lawyers to block this documentary film from being
shown anywhere, Washington's Newseum, to its credit, had a one-time showing on June 13, 2016,
including a question-and-answer session with Andrei Nekrasov, moderated by journalist Seymour
Hersh. 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.
Nekrasov's powerful deconstruction of the Magnitsky myth – and the film's subsequent
blacklisting throughout the "free world" – recall other instances in which the West's
propaganda lines don't stand up to scrutiny, so censorship and ad hominem attacks become the
weapons of choice to defend " perception
management ."
Other than the New
York Times that had a lukewarm review , the mainstream media condemned the film and its
showing. As such, with the exception of that one audience, the public in the USA, Canada and
Europe has been shielded from the documentary's discoveries. The censorship of this film has
made it a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we
used to call "the other side of the story."
Andrei Nekrasov is still prepared to go to court to defend the findings of his film, but
Bill Browder has refused to do this and simply keeps maligning the film and Mr. Nekrasov.
Recent Developments
Although for almost the past ten years Browder's self-serving story had been accepted almost
worldwide and served to help vilify Russia, in the past few months there has been an awakening
to the true state of affairs about Browder.
The first such article"The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S.
Sanctions" written by Benjamin Bidder, a German journalist, appeared on November 26, 2019
in Der Spiegel. At the outset Bidder states:
"Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story suggest he may not have
been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him to be. Did the
perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan
whose story the West was too eager to believe? The certainty surrounding the Magnitsky affair
becomes muddled in the documents, particularly the clear division between good and evil. The
Russian authorities' take is questionable, but so is everyone else's -- including Bill
Browder's.
But with the Magnitsky sanctions, it could be that the activist Browder used a noble cause
to manipulate Western governments."
In summation, the article raises serious questions about many aspects of Browder's account.
It concluded that his narrative was riddled with lies and said Western nations have fallen for
a "convenient" story made up by a "fraudster. "
The report provoked Browder's fury, and he swiftly filed a complaint against Der
Spiegel with the German Press Council as well as a complaint to the editor of Der
Spiegel .
On December 17, 2019 Der Spiegel responded : " Why DER SPIEGEL Stands Behind Its Magnitsky
Reporting." In a lengthy detailed response the journal rejects all aspects of Browder's
complaint. They point out the inconsistencies in Browder's version of events and demonstrate
that he is unable to present sufficient proof for his claims. They state: We believe his
complaint has no basis and would like to review why we have considerable doubts about Browder's
story and why we felt it necessary to present those doubts publicly."
Their report is highly enlightening and will have long-term consequences. It is one of the
best refutations of Browder's falsified accounts that led to the Magnitsky Act. It exposes
Browder as a fraud and his Magnitsky story as a fake. Despite all this, this exposé was
ignored in the mainstream media so most people are unaware of these revelations.
A good review of it is presented by Lucy Komisar in her article The Der Spiegel
exposé of Bill Browder, December 6, 2019.
The German Press Council rejected Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel in January
2020 but Browder did not disclose this so it became known only in early May.
Lucy Komisar reported this on May 12 and the main points of the Council's rejection are
presented in her account. Browder had complained that the article had serious factual errors.
The Press Council stated that Browder's position lacks proof and there could be no objection to
Der Spiegel's examination of events leading to Magnitsky's death. All other Browder
objections were rejected as well. In summation the Council stated: "Overall, we could not find
a violation of journalistic principles."
But the action of the press council has not been reported in the Canadian, U.S. or UK media.
Nor was the November Der Spiegel report.
The German Press Council ruling follows a December 2019 Danish Press Board ruling against
another Browder complaint over an article by a Danish financial news outlet, Finans.dk, on
his tax evasion and invented Magnitsky story. Significantly, both the Danish and German cases
involve mainstream media, which usually toe the US-UK-NATO strategic line against Russia, which
Browder's story serves. And these press complaint rulings follow a September 2019
European Court of Human Rights ruling that there was credible evidence that Magnitsky and
Browder were engaged in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud and that Magnitsky was rightfully
charged.
In summation, for ten years or more, no one in the West ever seriously challenged Bill
Browder's account of what happened to his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky and his stories of
corruption and malfeasance in Russia. This is what allowed him to get such influence that the
Magnitsky Act was passed, despite Russia's attempts to clarify matters.
But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals Der Spiegel published an investigative bombshell picking apart
Browder's story about his auditor Sergei Magnitsky's death. Browder immediately lashed out at
Der Spiegel , accusing it of "misrepresenting the facts." However, his outraged
objections backfired and resulted in a further even more damaging Der Spiegel article
and a rebuke from the German Press Council.
At long last, thanks to Der Spiegel , its investigative reports have effectively
rejected and discredited Browder's claim that Magnitsky was a courageous whistleblower who
exposed corruption in Russia and was mercilessly killed by authorities out of revenge.
Despite this important and significant course of events, because of its imbedded
Russophobia, the mainstream media have completely ignored the Der Spiegel exposé
and almost nowhere has this been reported. To some extent this is because Browder has used his
fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively
silencing many critics. Hence aside from people in Germany, this has been a non-event and the
Browder hoax still prevails. Given this, it is important for us to publicize this revelation as
best we can.
John, great article but we know that what you call "large-scale privatizations in Russia "
was a large scale robbery. Even Magnitsky's mother stated that Browder is a fraud. Mr.
Nekrasov whose film has been banned in many countries due to Browder's legal challenges has a
reputation as a Putin critic -- After interviewing Mr. Browder in 2010 Nekrasov says he set
out to make a "Magnitsky the hero" film. But as filming proceeded he "began to have doubts".
More accurate would be that he smelled a rat. John, I have read many of your articles you
never disappoint with your research and evidence.
Outstanding article sir. I remember when Browder popped up in the news a couple of years ago
and made TV appearances on all three big networks in the same day. I was astonished that this
lowlife wielded such influence in America.
Indeed – and very likely more than one! It should be obvious that the ease with
which Browder (a complete nonentity) was able to get away with what he got away with in
Russia and remain a virtually untouchable, protected free man to this day, in spite of the
very significant evidence against him, would very much seem to indicate that he, much like
Paul Bremer later in Iraq, was a tool of higher powers.
Excellent article. There is a misperception that these pathological liars are believed, since
their critics are silenced. It has been my experience that that is not the case. The
pathological liars are not believed. They just keep lying, sabotaging, fining, legal system
stalking, shouting down their oppenents, black listing those who doubt or know that they are
lying as conspiracy theorists. I've been witnessing this for far to long. It is obviously not
limited to the Magnitsky Act. This country is really nothing more than a sick joke at this
point. These individuals do not behave like people. They behave like mercury poisoned
monsters. Maybe they are. There is no logical excuse for this insanity. However, if they were
mercury poisoned monsters, they would not all always have the same insane delusions. They are
extremely corrupt sadistic terrorist criminal psychopaths that have destroyed America and the
rest of the world too.
They are not The Resistance, they are The Persistence! Something has to be done about
them. Freedom of the press does not give people the freedom to deliberately lie. You may
doubt that, however, slander, libel, and defamation of charcter suits will prove you to be
wrong, in addition to providing false information that endangers human life and national
security, in the case of a non person like covid that is being used to deprive people of
every liberty and rights that exists, including life. They are terrorists. They cannot claim
to be news journalists or investigative reporters if they simply say whatever their
advertisers or the government tells them to say. If they are unable to get to the bottom of
the story, when so many in the alternative media are, then they are either unqualified to do
their jobs, or are simply full of shit.
I really believe that the primary intention of covid and the response to it is to get
people to voluntarily give up cell phones, particularly since 5-G is so hazardous. That way,
the industries will never have to admit any wrong doing about the health hazards related to
cell phones and Wi-Fi.That
is what I believe. Also, you can be damn sure that the government and corporations do not
like the fact that they can be embarrassed by people that they cannot prevent from
embarrassing them without being accused of human rights abuses like vault7 technology.
"Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?!" – Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial
Home For Incurable Tyants
@Vuki I had at one time a copy of a book titled "The murder of Bill Browder" by an
Eastern European journalist which I have, unfortunately, misplaced. As well as being an
exposè of the nefarious Mr Browder it also exposes far more serious wrongdoing against
him. This book has vanished from the Google search engine (I wonder why?) so if anyone can
tell me where to get a copy i would really value it
While most American's were distracted by the emerging World Wide Web, our elite were
raping Russia. I'll say it again, America's "elite" raped Russia. In internet time twenty
five years past puts you in prehistoric times. This is critical history that most of us
missed, or more accurately wasn't available -- to the majority of us.
This was the Clinton era -- with just that you know this story can't be good. With Slick
Willie's taste for skanks in a period where there is a story of beautiful impoverished young
Russian women (teens likely) forming a line for one of our "elite" who was peeling off
Benjamins for blowjobs in a club frequented by their foreign "advisors." Yep, I'm sure this
was of no interest to William Jefferson Blythe III.
Harvard University was given a significant role in this "helping" of Russia (pardon the
pun), due to the prestige of this institution, long-gone and unbeknownst to Russian elite,
but hey they weren't "connected" yet. Geez, sorry about your luck. The Harvard you got was
the Harvard we've been getting also, a race privileged hot bed for educating global "rapists"
(or was that Brandeis University I'm thinking of?). Six of one
William Browder is a highly educated Jew (not certain about either) who's grandfather was
Earl Browder, the former General Secretary of the CPUSA (that's the "Communist Party of the
United States of America" for those of you who didn't know we had one). Bill Browder crowed
about the irony in his grandfather being an activist for communism here in the U.S., while HE
was an activist for capitalism in Russia! No, he was doing to Russia what Jews did to Russia
when they hijacked the real Russian's revolution -- fucking them.
Billy Browder's book, "Red Notice," seems at first heartfelt story from a genuine American
do-gooder. Oops! I missed the "A true story " tip-off. It's a self engrandizing fairy tale of
a rapist's plea of innocence because "she didn't say NO."
There is MUCH more to this most interesting, world impacting historical event, that I
believe is the most understated and least understood of the twentieth century, but that said,
who fucked up? Certainly Yeltsin with his alcohol addled brain (likely rooted for by Russian
Jews, who are the MOST notorious criminals world-wide) in trusting and believing America
would help Russia! More significantly I feel America did, big-time, for acting so damn
un-American. Unfortunately the America I'm dreaming of is as long-gone as Harvard and now,
like Harvard has a Zionist occupied governance (if you didn't know what "ZOG" stood for).
Come to think of it, we're acting much like Israel. God save America!
I can tell you one person who did not, Vladimir Ilyich Putin. Yeltsin threw Russia's doors
open to the west and Putin slammed them shut. You can quibble about how he got and keeps his
office, or how he enriched himself through the process, but he had a job to do and he did it
well -- he saved Russia from what the west was going to continue doing to it. You may not
agree with his ideology, but he is the most formidable leader the world has. I pray he leaves
Russia and Russians in a better place than we're headed.
So, here we are today, where Trump is currently in the position to decide whether Russia
should be invited to the next G-whatever summit:
I say we're damn lucky it isn't Putin deciding whether to include Trump and the U.S., as
some day it very well may be.
P.S. This is a rant of mine burning a long time for a window. Thank you John Ryan. Thank
you Billy Browder. Most of all, Thank YOU Mr. Unz!
UNZ has provided a platform for authors, journalists and "knowers" from all over the
world. All converging on the same theme -- there is a "they" and there is a plan. This
seeming runaway train has awakened plain folks with uncommon sense and giants of intellect
alike. Kudos, Ron Unz.
" The western Governments are easily moved or manipulated" and have been Gang Banged –
time and time again by the corrupt mafia corporations, Zionists inc., and a dozen other
international gangs that are in charge of things – today. Not to mention the corrupt,
treasonist nationals that work for the Western Governments. Browder's Hermitage scam just
shows how easily the US Gov and others are bought and paid for – that's why the true
Magnitsky lie , has to be covered up , from the public. PS – notice all the tax money
Browder skimmed off the US – very visible to anyone that can smell a Rat.
I became aware of the Browder case when known controlled asset, Brandon Martinez, used his
claims as a refutation of Putin which he seemed unbelievably obsessed about.
As I perused you-tube for videos on Browder, I saw that he was welcomed into all approved
western media to make his case with the questioners rarely going into the material to dispute
his claims. I determined at that time that Browder was part of a deep state campaign to
demonize Russia under Putin leadership.
It surprises me not to hear no MSM News organization will print these latest findings since
in 2012 I realized the free world and press are anything but free and lie as much or more
than the most demonized communist outlets.
Not mentioned in the article that I recall is the fact that Browder's dad was the head of the
Communist party in the USA before and during WWII which should be enough by itself for a
legitimate news outlet to scrutinize with great vigor any claims made by the man but then we
know WWII was really a war against any country willing to exercise goyim rule independent of
Jewish advisors and that the US was on the side of Jewish power in that war as much as all
the other wars it has engaged in.
(Its interesting that my spell check keeps telling me that there is no such word as "goyem")
"But when pressure was exerted on Germany to install a Magnitsky Act, one of their most
influential journals "
Der Spiegel is known as a craven Atlanticist rag. Somebody high up – possibly as a
snub to the Trump admin – must have provided ass cover for it to be upheld.
Useful summary of browder's scam. The man managered to wield a great amount of influence in
american/uk media and government, yet is only a minor player by western oligarch standards.
For that he must have substantial backing. By whom?
Well he definitely is closely defended by these sources:
British Jewish businessman who challenged Putin is put on Interpol wanted list
Bill Browder is a thief, a typical representative of a flock of Western vultures that landed
in 1990s Russia to steal state assets. When his thievery was curbed by Putin, he got angry
and vengeful, like a scorned lover. He manufactured and spread lies to whip up an anti-Putin
campaign in the West. His "narrative" was eagerly supported by the neocons and other scum, as
it was in line with their "narrative". Naturally, the first things about Browder any honest
investigator or journalist would unearth were lies and fraud. Just as naturally, the scum and
scum-controlled Western MSM keep spreading lies supporting their "narrative", and ignoring
numerous facts that contradict it.
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
@Saggy Many thanks for posting this. Halfway through the film I began to suspect that
Browder had Magnitsky killed: "Dead Men Tell No Tales", and an accountant can tell very
important tales for the procecution. I had no idea that several guys connected with Browder
shell companies convienently turned up dead. Looks like the "cleanup" scenes in Scorcese's
"Casino".
And what is your evidence for claiming that the EU and USA want to break up Russia into
'smaller statelets'? That smells a bit fishy. It would make the world a more dangerous
place.
One of distinctive features, the hallmark of neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment is rabid, often paranoid Russophobia which includes active,
unapologetic support of separatist movements within Russia.
I think the evidence of the USA and EU (especially GB, but also Poland, Sweden, and
Germany) multi-level (PR, MSM, financial, diplomatic and sometimes military) support of
Islamic separatists in Russia is well known: support of separatist movements in Russia is
just a continuation of the support of separatist movement within the USSR, which actually
helped to blow up the USSR from within (along the key role of KGB changing sides along with a
part of Politburo who deciding to privatize Russia's economy)
Here is old but still relevant list of "who is who" in the USA foreign policy
establishment in promoting separatism in Russia. You will see many prominent neocons in the
list.
The foreign policy of the USA toward Russia to a considerable extent is driven by emigres
from Eastern Europe and people who were accepted to the USA before and, especially, after
WWII from filtration camps. This "diaspora lobby" includes older generation of emigrants such
as late Brzezinski, Madeline Allbright, as well as more recent such as Farkas, Chalupa,
Appelebaum, etc. The same is true for Canada (Freeland). All of them are rabid, sometimes
paranoid (Brzezinski) Russophobs. They consistently use the USA as a leverage to settle the
"ancient hatred".
"... First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich. ..."
"... And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom. ..."
"... Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire. ..."
"... The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?) ..."
Why do our 'foreign interventionists,' our 'permanent war for globalist perpetual peace'
crusaders, our Neocons, hate Russia so thoroughly and so centrally to their very beings?
First, our imperialists are the direct descendants intellectually, spiritually, and
morally of the first WASP Empire, the first Anglo-Zionist Empire: the British Empire. And
they have used their high IQs that are focused on grasping the One Ring to Rule Them All to
locate where the Brit WASP Empire failed to achieve its goals, which allowed the collapse
starting with World War 1. They are obsessed with that because they believe that if they can
achieve what the Brit WASPs failed to achieve, then they can make the Anglo-Zionist Empire
2.0 as permanent as the Roman Empire – a Thousand Year Reich.
And that is spiritually what all WASP imperialism, all Anglo-Zionist imperialism back to
at least the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, is about: replacing the Roman Empire, which means
replacing that which culturally led to, and was absolutely indispensable to, Christendom.
What they wish to redo and achieve that the Brit WASPs failed in is winning The Great
Game: becoming total master of Eur-Asia. And that requires taking out Russia and China. In
the 19th century, China was sicker than even the Ottoman Turkish Empire. To play the long
game to destroy Russia, the Brit WASPs allied with the Turks to prevent Russia acting to push
the Ottomans out of Europe. Brit WASP secret service in eastern Europe was focused on
reducing Russia significantly right through the Bolshevik Revolution, even with Russia
naively, stupidly allied with the British Empire in World War 1.
Our 'foreign interventionists' have seen Russia under Putin rise from the ashes, and they
intend to destroy Russia once and for all, so they then can reduce China and win The Great
Game. And thus make Anglo-Zionist Empire greater than Roman Empire.
Second, our Neocons are the spiritual and intellectual descendants not just of
Trotskyites, but of all Russia-hating Jews with ties to Central and/or Eastern Europe. For
them, Russia always is the evil that must be destroyed for the good of Jews.
Everything at its bedrock is about theology, is about the choice between Christ and
Christendom or the Chaos of anti-Christendom.
The "foreign interventionists" want two things: Russia's mineral riches and its good gene
pool (how do you think Middle Eastern Semites became blonde hair-blue eyed people who can
easily blend into the West to undermine it from within in the first place to begin with?)
And they won't stop until they get what they want, by hook or crook!
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of
Syria -- and then sending them
back in . One hundred thousand
Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are
still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .
Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including
Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish
alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it
spiralled out of control.
Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of
lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
Surprise, surprise. The Trump/Kim Jong-un love affair was about as long as one of Elizabeth
Taylor's romances. Kim Jong-un wrote him beautiful letters and they fell in love, yet just as
quickly they fell out of love. That's the way it is with Trump. He's a male version of
Elizabeth Taylor. Melania was smart to renegotiate her prenup. It appears Kim Jong-un
neglected to insist on a prenup.
Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to
me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the
kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot
closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it
quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also
demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the
region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are
usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...
Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but
only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and
daydreamers.
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
Trump's threat to deploy the military here
is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction from military officers to
the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
According to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched,
the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly
intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
Trump's threat
to deploy the military here is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction
from military officers to the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense
referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was
making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the
language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's
tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a
deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the
normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in
the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless
and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this
time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he
inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of
faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
Sound like wishful thinking. Looks like cutting US military budget is impossible as "Full
spectrum Dominance" doctrine is still in place and neocons are at the helm of the USA foreign
policy. COVID-19 or not COVID-19.
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget
would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive
deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for
higher defense budgets have
warned that the defense budget
is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally
convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible
cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for
income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of
Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the
threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron
bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so
far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a
"rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion
appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but
Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee
said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is
true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out
of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011,
the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well,
when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a
fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders,
making it possible to put a lid
on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit,
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget
Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover
both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the
defense budget
began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go
down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of
what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic
spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to
escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real
discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see
their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very
much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to
see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions
they do. It's about something I called
the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however,
defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant,
relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the
community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft
on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points
the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and
projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that,
presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces
(Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut
Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense
authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending
advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and
community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and
community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape
to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates
somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major
impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis
into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep
cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the
advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting
priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one
that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate
change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very
large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron
Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here,
particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are
critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can
begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader
priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly
on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
Trump claims that the resolution was "based on misunderstandings of facts and law." The
only allegedly incorrect fact he mentions is the existence of open hostilities between the
United States and Iran, but that's merely a reflection of the time when the measure was
drafted. Besides, the two countries are still not exactly at peace with each other, thanks
in part to the president.
Trump is the one who is clearly mistaken regarding the law. He insists, as he did in
January, that the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was sufficient justification for killing Soleimani, but as the American Conservative's
Daniel Larison opined, "There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this
interpretation." In addition, he claims that he derives his war-making power from Article
II of the Constitution, yet that article specifically states that "the president shall be
commander in chief of the [armed forces] when called into the actual service of the United
States." (Emphasis added.) And who gets to call them into service? According to Article I,
Congress does, by declaring war.
Trump doubles down on this unsupportable assertion in his next paragraph:
The resolution implies that the President's constitutional authority to use military
force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack.
That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution
recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries' next moves and
take swift and decisive action in response. That's what I did!
This is on a par with Trump's declaration over the states re-opening: he declared: "When
somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way
it's got to be."
This lunatic thinks he's Caesar!
Anyone who thinks he won't start a new war - somewhere - is delusional. He may not start
one *before* the election, but if he wins, what about *after*? And i wouldn't even be sure
about "before". He's dumb enough to think - or be convinced by his neocon advisers - that he
could get a "war President" boost in the polls if he starts one before the election. After
all, the one time he got a boost in the polls was when he attacked Syria over the bogus
"chemical weapons" incidents. So I wouldn't rule anything out.
From MoA comment
57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other
side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long
series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world
heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With
China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called
Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the
planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of
the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if
sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless
consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data
traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever
do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it.
Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
"Foglesong's book provides a panoramic view of American popular attitudes toward Russia, one that is illustrated with many
arresting cartoons and magazine covers. It should provoke a wider debate about the rationality of evaluating Russia with reference
to an idealized view of the United States, as well as the deeper sources of this tendency." -Deborah Welch Larson, H-Diplo
"In the 21st century, the American debate on the prospects of modernizing Russia and on the Americans' role in this process is
still going strong even though it began more than a century ago. This is why David Foglesong's book aimed at elucidating the
mechanisms of misrepresentations which threaten both Russian-American relations and the world security as a whole is of equal
importance for the academic community and for the policy makers in both Russia and the United States."
-Victoria Zhuravleva, H-Diplo
"Foglesong demonstrates that powerful Americans have again and again seen the possibility, even necessity, of spreading the word
to Russia, and then, when Russia fails to transform itself into something resembling the US, have recoiled and condemned Russia's perfidious
national character or its leaders-most recently Putin. The author's singular achievement is to show that well before the cold war, Russia
served as America's dark double, an object of wishful thinking, condescension and self-righteousness in a quest for American purpose-without
much to show for such efforts inside Russia. The author thereby places in context the cold war, when pamphleteers like William F Buckley
Jr and politicians like Ronald Reagan pushed a crusade to revitalise the American spirit. Russia then was a threat but also a means
to America's end (some fixed on a rollback of the alleged Soviet "spawn" inside the US-the welfare state-while others, after the Vietnam
debacle, wanted to restore "faith in the United States as a virtuous nation with a unique historical mission"). Foglesong's exposé of
Americans' "heady sense of their country's unique blessings" helps make sense of the giddiness, followed by rank disillusionment, vis-...-vis
the post-Soviet Russia of the 1990s and 2000s." -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine -Stephen Kotkin, Prospect Magazine
Notable quotes:
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
"... The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea. ..."
"... This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags. ..."
"... T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil, precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror. ..."
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which
missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans
as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair
during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's
own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts
about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions
that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia,
more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting
what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American
journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have
distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."
The Adventures of Straw Man Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2013 This has been the essential function of US
Russia policy, as David Foglesong shows in his century-long tour.
The usefulness of Russia as bogeyman for all that is wrong in the world - a contrasting foil to the virtues of "us" - has
defined this relationship ever since the first democratic stirrings in Russia following the Emancipation of '61. In this it followed
Britain, who'd long demonized Russia since imperial rivalries over the Crimea.
This trope was also successful for reactionaries in blocking progressive legislation at home. Ronald Reagan was perhaps
the most successful in this linkmanship: "socialized medicine" was the first step to the gulags.
The crusade against US civil rights - of which Reagan was also a part in his early career - as Communist-inspired tinkering
with the Constitution was much less successful. His support for free trade unions in the Soviet Bloc while crushing them at home
underscored the irony.
But Foglesong is much too generous in evaluating Reagan's human decency as a policy motive. Reagan pursued his grand rollback
strategy by any means necessary, mixing hard tactics (contras, death-squad funding, mujahadin, Star Wars) with soft (democracy-enhancement,
human rights, meeting with Gorbachev). Solidarity activists in Poland might remember his crusading fondly; survivors of the Salvadoran
civil war will not.
The "crisis" with the Putin regime currently empowered shows the missionary impulse yet alive: projecting one's reforming instincts
upon others rather than at home. T he flak over Pus*y Riot following this book's publication - while ignoring the crucifixion
of the Dixie Chicks - demonstrates the double standard is too convenient to be allowed to wither. The empire must always be evil,
precisely because it reflects our own image like a Buddhist truth mirror.
I do find it puzzling that Foglesong made no mention of Maurice Hindus, the prolific popular "explainer" of Russia in over
a dozen mid-century books; and the notorious defector Victor Kravchenko and his best-selling memoir of the 1940s (ghost-written
by Eugene Lyons, another popular anti-Soviet scribe). Both were much more influential in the public and political mind than many
of the more obscure missionary authors Foglesong does cite. Nevertheless, Foglesong has offered a generous helping of cultural/political
history that shows no signs of growing stale.
>
indah nuritasari , Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2012
This book tells a fascinating story of American efforts to liberate and remake Russia since the 1880s. It starts with the story
of Tsar Alexander II's asasination on March 1, 1881 and how James William Buel, a Missoury Journalist wrote it in his book "Russian
Nihilism and Exile Life in Siberia."
The story continues until The Reagan era and "the Evil Empire," 1981-1989.
This book is very interesting and useful for history lovers, students, journalists, or general public. Here you can find all
the "dark and exciting stuff" about the cold war, including the involvement of the journalists, political activists, diplomats,
and even engineers.
It is really helpful for me as a new immigrant in the US to help me understand the US position and role in the Cold War Era.
The language used in this book, though, is " kind of dry". A little editing for the next edition could be really helpful!!
Bill Browder's complaint against Der Spiegel for questioning the story he used to push
for anti-Russian sanctions has backfired, with Germany's Press Council concluding his own
position is far from being an "indisputable fact."
"We cannot agree with your analysis, in which you criticize the allegations made by the
author," the German Press Council – a monitoring organization formed by major German
publishers and journalistic associations – said in its response to Browder's team, as it
rejected the complaint against one of Germany's major news media outlets
What's the world come to when the world's most influential
ex-American-vulture-capitalist-turned-British-human-rights-crusader can't crush free speech
in every NATO country, only some NATO countries? A blow to all the London-DC human rights
apparatchiks on Browder's payroll. https://t.co/774OihXK8T
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and security apparatus organized into regional commands that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. ..."
"... The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization. ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
"... Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness. ..."
"... The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy. And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America, $17.5 billion is set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace. ..."
"... To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United
States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the
name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that
300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then
called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite
decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for
presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any
other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's
military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as
though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as
aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it
frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect
a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the
details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
Just as i said many times, it is Trump driving US hostility and escalation in the world, and
not only those around him. He is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years.
A racist white man goes crazy the moment he understands he does not have the "biggest
dick" anymore, and is humiliated due to that, since this wasn't supposed to happen to the
people who ruled the world for 500 years.
What will happen is that american white male right wingers will start going crazy. Lashing
out in hatred against the world, after understanding they are no longer "number 1", and that
their fate will not be pretty.
You should expect US right wingers to go crazy as the US further declines. These people
thought they would rule the world. Instead they started to decline. This wasn't supposed to
happen to such superior people.
US elite will simply go crazy as the "best country in the world" loses its power.
Expect anglo craziness, outbursts of hate and hysteria. The US elite will become a mental
institution. If not for nukes, they would have started a world war already.
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
If the new coronavirus pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we need to rethink what
we need to do to keep America safe. That's why Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's recent
tweet calling modernization of U.S. nuclear forces a "top priority ... to protect the
American people and our allies" seemed so tone deaf.
COVID-19 has already
killed more Americans than
died in the
9/11 attacks and the Iraq and Afghan wars combined, with projections of many more to come.
The pandemic underscores the need for a systematic, sustainable, long-term investment in public
health resources,
from protective equipment , to ventilators and hospital beds, to research and planning
resources needed to deal with future outbreaks of disease.
As Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, has
noted : "We're going to see enormous downward pressure on defense spending because of other
urgent American national needs like health care." And that's as it should be, given the
relative dangers posed by outbreaks of disease and climate change relative to traditional
military challenges.
... ... ...
ICBMs are dangerous because of the short decision time a president would have to decide
whether to launch them in a crisis to avoid having them wiped out in a perceived first strike
-- a matter of
minutes . This reality greatly increases the prospect of an accidental nuclear war based on
a false warning of attack. This is a completely unnecessary risk given that the other two legs
of the nuclear triad -- ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-armed bombers -- are more than
sufficient to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate, should the unlikely scenario of a
nuclear attack on the United States occur.
... ... ...
Eliminating ICBMs and reducing the size of the U.S. arsenal will face strong opposition in
Washington, both from strategists who maintain that the nuclear triad should be sacrosanct, and
from special interests that benefit from excess spending on nuclear weapons. The Senate
ICBM Coalition , composed of senators from states with ICBM bases or substantial ICBM
development and maintenance work, has been particularly effective in fending any changes in
ICBM policy, from reducing the size of the force to merely studying alternatives, whether those
alternatives are implemented or not.
Shimizu Randall Personally I don't see why the Trident subs cannot be refurbished and have
a extended life. I think the Minuteman missiles need to be replace. But I don't understand why
the cost is exorbitant. Terry Auckland
OMG.....what a sensible idea..Other nuclear capable countries will fall into line if this is
adopted....peace could thrive and flourish ...sadly it could never happen..too much money at
state...too many careers truncated...and too many lobbyists and thinktank type's and loyalist
senators to cajole and appease..
A pipe dream I think. ..situation normal will continue to annhilation...
Rabid militarism is the result of "Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine". It can't be changed
without changing the doctrine. Which requires elimination of neocons from foreign policy
establishment. But the there is not countervailing force to MIC to push for this.
Oona Hathaway makes
the case for radically reorienting U.S. national security policy to address the real
significant threats to the country. Among other things, that means winding down the endless war
and our preoccupation with militarized counter-terrorism:
If one believes, as I do, that the fundamental goal of a national security program should
be to protect American lives, then we clearly have our priorities out of place. Just as the
9/11 attacks led to a reorientation of national security policy around a counterterrorism
mission, the COVID-19 crisis can and should lead to a reorientation of national security
policy. There should be a commission styled on the 9/11 Commission to assess the failures of
the U.S. government, both federal and local, to respond to the pandemic and to chart a better
course forward. Until then, a few key steps that we should take are already clear:
First, we should spend less time and resources on counterterrorism efforts abroad. The
"endless wars" that began after 9/11 should finally come to a close.
The U.S. should be ending the "war on terror" in any case because the threat does not merit
the enormous resources devoted to fighting it, and the militarized overkill over the last two
decades has helped to create far more terrorist groups than there were before it began. On top
of that, the U.S. has much bigger concerns that pose far greater and more immediate threats to
the lives of our people and to our way of life than terrorism ever could. A pandemic is a
threat that is now obvious to all of us, but for the last two decades it was not taken nearly
as seriously as imaginary Iraqi WMDs and potential Iranian nukes. We have been straining at
gnats for at least half of my lifetime, and when the real danger appeared many of us were
oblivious to it. Not only have other threats been blown out of proportion, but the more serious
threat that is now upon us received virtually no attention until it was already upon us. Like
Justinian wasting decades waging useless wars, we have been caught unawares by a plague, but in
our case we have far less excuse because there were many warnings that something like this was
coming and could be brought under control. Nonetheless, we allowed our defenses against it to
grow weaker, and the current administration did as much as possible to dismantle what was
left.
Once the immediate crisis is over, the U.S. needs to shift its focus away from fruitless
military campaigns in Asia. We need to reallocate resources away from the bloated military
budget, which has had so little to do with actually protecting us, and plow most of those
resources into pandemic preparedness, scientific research, and building up a much more
resilient health care system. Pandemics aren't wars, but guarding against pandemics is an
important part of national security and it is arguably much more important than having the
ability to project power to the far corners of the world. Because pandemics are global
phenomena, guarding the U.S. against them will entail more intensive international cooperation
than before. Hathaway continues:
One clear lesson of this crisis is that when it comes to a pandemic, no nation can protect
itself on its own. International cooperation is essential. The World Health Organization has
played an important role in battling the virus. But it has been hobbled by limited funding,
and it's busy fundraising to support its work even as it's trying to undertake ambitious
programs. The United Nations Security Council, meanwhile, has been mostly absent from the
conversation. The pandemic is global and it requires a global approach. But these
international institutions have not had the funding or the international support to play the
role they should have in coordinating a quick global response to the spread of the virus.
When this crisis is over, it will be essential to evaluate how to coordinate a faster, more
effective global response when the next pandemic arises.
All nations have a shared interest in pooling resources and sharing information to bring
outbreaks like the current one under control. As tempting as it may be for some hard-liners to
engage in great power rivalry in the midst of such a disaster, the responsible course of action
is to pause these contests for the sake of resolving the crisis sooner. The U.N. response has
been hobbled by mutual recriminations between some of the permanent members of the Security
Council, specifically the U.S. and China, and if there is to be an effective and coordinated
global response that sort of demagoguery and point-scoring will have to end.
Scaling back the size of the military budget will necessarily involve reducing the U.S.
military footprint around the world. It is not reasonable or safe to expect a smaller military
to support a strategy of primacy. Primacy was always unsustainable, and it was just a matter of
time before the time came when it would have to be abandoned. It turns out that the time for
abandoning the pursuit of primacy came earlier than expected. The U.S. should have started
making this transition many years ago, but recent events make it imperative that we begin
now.
There is not, and has not been since the Cold War, any daylight between the Republican and
Democratic parties on foreign policy. Both have been consistently in the thrall of the
neocons. While a few Democratic contenders took anti-war stances this year (Sanders,
Warren, Gabbard), the rest did not, and Biden, specifically has been on the wrong side of
all of these issues in the past. There is no reason to think he will not continue the
endless wars and, probably, start new ones if elected.
Since relatively few people vote for third parties, it is a sure thing that the vast
majority of Americans will vote for one of the two warmongers on offer from the major
parties. And so it was in 2016: whether you voted for Clinton or Trump, you were voting for
more endless war. Those who supported Clinton mostly knew that; many who voted for Trump
deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on
it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have
lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of
Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last
year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq &
Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how
exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be
struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very
effectively shoot back?
Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of
heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to
remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
Just heard the orange god deliver this line at the daily CODIV-19 task force briefing. For
this fool, the military is a pile of new "stuff," He bought it, he paid for the "stuff" so, he
has created a "brand new military." What about the people who served throughout the miserably
stupid war in Iraq and the equally stupid post 2009 attempt to pacify Afghanistan, a country
that never was and never will be. Think of the money and blood that we pissed away there. Even
the Pompous one sees the necessity to withdraw our support from the wretches who run the
government there or pretend to do that. Or perhaps Trump told him to stick it to them, at long
last. Trump's experience of "military service" was his corrective enrollment at a private
military high school, but he has stated that he knows "all about it.
Someone remarked to me once that it had been a miracle that the US could create an army for
WW2. I asked him in response what sort of occupation Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton
had been involved with before the war. Shoe sales? Gas station ownership" Insurance sales?
What?
It would be tempting to think that one might vote for the Democrat. Biden the demented?
Sanders the Marxist dreamer? Cuomo the massive NY City creep egotist?
If MSM were in the business of posting facts instead of partisan hyperbole, you would think
the Dems would have run something far better than a Sanders or a Biden at this particular
juncture of history.
So did we get are handed a choice among "deplorables"; or an echo of equal deplorables.
Right now, I will continue to dance with the gal who brung me. Trump is seasoning well and
growing into the job. I would like to see what his next four years will bring. He knows the
inside game now.
Who was it who said ask a government insider to do something and you get a string of
excuses why it can't be done. Demurr to a business person who asks to get something done, and
he/she will say fine, now go find me someone who can get it done. KAG 2020.
Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were
watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here https://vimeo.com/76668594
This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme
parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an
almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to
be had by all.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
In an op-ed in the Financial Times on March 4th, he [Soros] urged that "Europe must
stand with Turkey over Putin's war crimes in Syria," an astonishing misreading of the
situation in the region as Turkey is the aggressor while Russia is fighting to eliminate
the last major terrorist enclave in Idlibt.
" Defender 2020" is a "maneuvre of shame"
by Willy Wimmer
former State Secretary at the German Ministry of Defence
"The German Chancellor, Dr Angela Merkel, is breaking a taboo by allowing German soldiers to
participate in the biggest NATO manoeuvre since the end of the Cold War against Russia
.
It is therefore no wonder that the German Federal Government in May 2019 did not
commemorate the "Versailles" of one hundred years ago, nor did the German President do so in
a commemoration ceremony for which he can be held accountable. Versailles does not only mean
"the demon of revenge", but also a deliberate inability to strive for peace.
This way of thinking is expressed once again in the NATO major manoeuvre, deliberately
planned for the 9 May, the day the war ended in 1945. As if the fact had needed further
proof that the "NATO West" cannot make peace, it can only make war, be that war cold or
hot.
The American conference in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic in April 2000 made the
American goal for Europe clear: An Iron Curtain between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea,
Russia can stay anywhichwhere, and be divided or broken up into smaller states. The NATO
manoeuvre called "Defender 2020" is a "manoeuvre of shame" that only serves the
warmongers . "
There
was this moment during the State of the Union Address that I can't stop thinking about.
When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he'd
arranged her husband's return home from Afghanistan as a "special surprise," it was difficult
to watch.
Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven
months of deployment. Congress cheered. A military family's reunion -- with its complicated
feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base -- was used for an applause
line.
That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars
overseas. There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan, or beyond.
That's unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.
The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops
currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.
That's a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a
disaster and are negotiating an exit.
But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia,
Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror -- and making it deadlier.
Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump,
leading to more
civilian casualties in both countries. In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are
supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war. It received little coverage
in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more
than 80 people.
Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other
countries, pay the price of these wars. Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties --
the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.
And don't forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially
catastrophic war with Iran. And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country,
devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.
Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed
14,000 more
troops in the Middle East -- beyond the tens of thousands already there.
If this seems surprising, it's in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many
congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.
In December, 188 House Democrats
joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the
wars. They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California
Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.
It's worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and
joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family. Because there has
been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.
Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests -- from weapons manufacturers to
politicians -- are too invested. But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real
opposition will come from inside the White House.
As with so many other issues -- like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people
flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the
border -- those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders
follow. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Khury Petersen-Smith
by Ellen Taylor At this very moment
thousands of US soldiers are disembarking from troop transports in six European countries and
rushing toward prepositioned munitions around Europe, to deploy weapons as swiftly as possible.
This excitement marks the beginning of "Defender Europe 2020", the largest military
exercises to be staged in Europe in over 25 years. Strategists will record how swiftly our
forces can reach the Russian border, and test our NATO allies.
There has already been a massive US build-up in the countries bordering Russia.
In the words of Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, "The last 18 years of conflict built muscle
memory in counterinsurgency, but with this came atrophy in other areas. We are now engaging
these other muscle groups."
General Tod Wolters, Commander of US forces in Europe and of NATO, has stated, "I'm in favor
of a flexible first-use (nuclear weapon) policy."
The US has withdrawn from the INF treaty.
Most diabolical and chilling of all: the exercises will come to a climax in June, which is
the 75 th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941, which killed 27 million people. Russians born in 1930 turn 90 this year. They
remember. The heart and soul of Russia remembers as well.
Russian Chief General Gerasimov is convinced the US is preparing for war. All it would take
for an attack is one false-flag operation.
The people of the world lie in helpless ignorance. And the Doomsday clock moves 20 seconds
closer to midnight.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe
tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure,
but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel
stupid president.
uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30
Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.
"... The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to between $150 and $200 trillion. ..."
Bossing, bullying, and nickel-and-diming won't make for an easy divorce. Donald Trump at
NATO Summit, Brussels, in 2018
According to Politico , the American delegation to the
illustrious Munich Security Conference -- the security counterpart to the elite World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- was apparently "dumbfounded" by the hostile reaction they
received from European speakers, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Steinmeier even took aim at the Trump administration's
hallowed "Make America Great Again" slogan, accusing the United States of "rejecting the idea
of the international community." Steinmeier characterized Trump's position this way: "Every
country should fend for itself and put its own interests over all others 'great again' -- even
at the expense of neighbors and partners."
Ironically, Steinmeier's acerbic comments seem to conclude that if the United States becomes
uncomfortable with continuing to effectively subsidize the defense of wealthy European states,
which have long been capable of being at least the first line of defense for themselves, it is
inflicting suffering on its allies and doesn't even believe in the "international community."
Steinmeier's grumbling is akin to that of an entitled young adult still living at home after
being told by his parents to get a job.
The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations
against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight
Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have
failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a
robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed,
NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military
remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than
that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a
GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national
debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to
between $150 and $200 trillion.
One might conclude from this that Trump's policy of angrily haranguing and belittling his
NATO allies into coughing up a few more dollars for their own defense is the right one. Trump
crudely understands the problem but has come up with the wrong solution. The many Eurocentric
analysts, who dominated the American foreign policy elite during the Cold War and are now
trying to hang on to relevance, keep hyping the general Russia threat by excessively demonizing
its president, Vladimir Putin, who is really just another tin-pot dictator.
A third way is still possible, one that avoids both placating the hand-wringing Eurocentric
establishment and the nickel-and-diming of NATO allies that Trump desires.
The worst fear of the Eurocentrics is that Trump will, before leaving office, withdraw from
the NATO alliance, much as he did with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, the
international agreement on climate change, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. Yet this
is the proper, though radical, approach. It needs to be done immediately, so that it can't be
reversed by the next president. The problem is that Trump has been rude and obnoxious enough to
the Europeans that the divorce might very well make Britain's exit from the European Union look
like a walk in the park. The ideal would have been to have had a previously cordial
relationship with Europe, followed by a U.S. statement that the European economic miracle has
allowed them to withstand a stagnant Russia and they need to finally take primary
responsibility for their own defense.
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China. Such a change is critical, and it remains to be seen whether it
can be achieved.
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the
Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue
Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May
2019.
"Trump Should Get Out Of NATO Now, But Nicely" is spot on. The Obama Administration pivot to
the Pacific could have be continued in a cordial fashion but that is not the Donald way. The
US needs to make a treaty with Russia and leave Europe with the possible exception of
Ramstein AFB.
These goofy neocon statements won't buy you anything. Stop giving legitimacy to the
establishment's false narrative, it won't make the foreign policy elites accept you, you
can't oppose the elite and at the same time work within the confines of the paradigm they
created. Not only are such statements untrue, it's self defeating.
Is it really false to say that Russia is stagnant though? After all, Russia has a falling
population (population peaked in the early 1990s), a relatively low life-expectancy, an
economy that is smaller than that of Italy's in terms of nominal GDP, and a conventional
military capability that is a mere shadow of what it once was in Soviet times. Other
countries (China, the U.S. etc..) may have a low fertility rate as well, but China has a
massive population to start with, and the U.S. can attract immigrants fairly well. Note: I am
not saying that immigration is necessarily a good thing when it is used as a means of
demographic replacement to make up for a low fertility rate, but it is one way to cope with
the geopolitical and economic implications of a low birth rate, at least for a time.
Certainly, Russia is not doing too badly by Third World standards, and,to be fair, I do
think Putin has utilized a fundamentally weak geopolitical hand rather well. It's also pretty
clear that Putin played a significant role in bringing Russia back from the brink
economically and culturally following the degradation it suffered in the 1990s. For that
matter, I think his popularity is likely genuine among many people in Russia, even if he is a
dictator of sorts. Still, if you look at the fundamental, long-term economic, demographic,
and military trends, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Russia is a declining power.
Over a long enough time frame, it almost certainly is.
Given the fact that Russia has not had an above replacement fertility rate since the fall of
the USSR, and given that it's ability to attract immigrants is rather limited (how many third
world immigrants would choose Russia, over, say, Germany?), I don't see how a falling
population is not inevitable for Russia in the long term. This is especially a problem for
Russia given the vastness of its eastern regions, as well as how few people live in those
regions to begin with.
A consistent theme of Pat Buchanan's columns about Russia is that-- given the vast
population disparities involved--China is likely to start slowly colonizing Siberia at some
point, at least in an implicit, economic sort of way. I do wonder if this is a likely
outcome.
I said that it's doing well by Third World standards, not that it necessarily is itself a
Third World nation. Historically, Russia was considered a Second World country, which makes
sense.
Russia has an excellent education system, its medical services are good, it has a high
literacy rate, it is white and Christian, with conservative values, and it has few gun
massacres.
Leaving NATO is a no-brainer. The US and Russia have a common foe - the Chicoms.
The problem with disbanding NATO is that no one knows what will follow.
Would Europe go back to the intra power politics of the early 20th Century? In which case the
US will likely sucked into their next war.
Or would the EU integrate it's defense and foreign policy and create a Federal Europe? And if
they did, how long would it take Europe to be a peer competitor to the US?
How many European countries have territorial claims on each other? Few to none.
How many European countries are in competition for colonies? Few to none.
You don't need territorial issues for war, the US had no territorial issues with Iraq nor
Afghanistan in 2001, it didn't prevent the US from invading both countries.
I can easily see something like social dumping starting a cascade that takes Europe to
war. That is the main European fear about BREXIT.
I think Russia is more worried about its southern flank than its western one in the long term
especially once the US and its ambition is gone. Russia badly needs to get closer to Europe.
Germany will rule the E.U. just as they would have If Hitler had won the 2cd World war It
will be national socialist which the Muslims will like .. The remaining Jews will have to
leave or die
NATO should have been mothballed after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. But the
vested interests of the military-industrial-financial complex have kept it expanding,
antagonizing Russia in its sphere of influence, seeking out new monsters (such as the unjust
and illegal war on Serbia), and it mainly exists now to enrich arms producers and to support
bureaucrats in Brussels with sinecures in their fancy headquarters building.
As an anti-war lefty, I just love this destruction of the intelligence community and hope
Trump really does abandon NATO... right before we drag him out of White House in shackles...
or some such thing.
It's curious the complaint about debt in this post... didn't everyone just agree to
increase the defense budget last year... again?
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China.
Why must the US hedge against a rising China in the Pacific ?
How is this a realistic plan of action?
China's rise has been through voluntary economic endeavors with other nations not through
force of arms. Asian issues must be solved via Asian nations engaging in dialectical dialogue
not US government gun-boat diplomacy.
The same logic that allows for a reduced US role in NATO (ie defending Europe) clearly
shows that America's allies in the Pacific (eg Japan, S.Korea, Indonesia, etc) have more than
recovered (eg Japan world's 3rd largest economy, S.Korea 12th largest, Indonesia 16th
largest) from the devastation of WWII and the Korea War and are quite capable of defending
themselves.
To paraphrase George Washington - trade with all entangling alliances with none.
The US has been running trillion dollar yearly deficits for over a decade with an
acknowledged 23 trillion dollar debt (as of 2020) along with hundreds of trillions of dollars
in unfunded future liabilities and deteriorating national infrastructure in need of over 3
trillion dollars in upgrades.
In order to meet these pressing issues the US government needs to stop garrisoning (ie
empire) the world under the tissue paper thin veneer of providing global stability and
security (of which it can not even provide in Baltimore Md 50 miles from DC) and return it's
myopic/megalomaniacal gaze to America.
I don't think Trump is really interested in leaving NATO. US has a stable & a dependable
market in Europe. US' presence in Europe prevents China & Russia spreading their wings
there. It will also assist US in containing these major powers along side its efforts in
South China Sea & the Info-Pacific. Internationally US gets the support of 27 Countries
in all international fora. To my mind, the very reason why US continually keeps projecting
Russia as an enemy is to ensure that the European countries remain tied to US.
Even if US is unwilling to let go Europe from the alliance, it is time EU abandons US
& takes responsibility for itself. Europe has the potential to become an important &
a powerful pole in a Multipolar world.
Russia presents more of a danger today than during the height of the Cold War: then the
Kremlin had a proper buffer zone, today it has not. There is the existential threat: the
reason nations to war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
While I agree that NATO is now irrelevant and a significant waste of US tax dollars, shifting
that expenditure to fight China might be an even bigger mistake. The US should withdraw its
military forces from the Western Pacific for the same reason we should leave NATO. Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines should be made responsible for making their own
accommodations with China.
It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters
evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar
scenes in Iraq.
A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis
assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a
not so immovable object.
Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!
The Trump administration's
legal justification for the Soleimani assassination is as preposterous as you would expect it to be:
The White House delivered its legal justification for the January airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, arguing
that President Donald Trump was authorized to take the action under the Constitution and 2002 legislation authorizing the Iraq
war.
The administration is no longer pretending that the assassination had anything to do with stopping an "imminent" attack. They
no longer claim that this is why the assassination was ordered. That by itself is a remarkable admission of the illegality of the
strike. If there was no "imminent" attack, the U.S. was taking aggressive action against a high-ranking official from another country.
There is no plausible case to be made that this was an act of self-defense. Not only did the president lack the authority to do this
on his own, but it would have been illegal under international law even if he had received approval from Congress before doing it.
The administration spent weeks hiding behind the "imminent" attack lie because without it there was no justification for what they
did.
Abandoning the "imminent" attack claim also means that the administration is trying to lower the bar for carrying out future strikes
against Iran and its proxies. Ryan Goodman points this out in his
analysis of the administration's statements:
The absence of an imminent threat is relevant not only to the legal and policy basis for the strike on Jan. 2. It is also relevant
for potential future military action. The administration's position appears to boil down to an assertion that it can use military
force against Iran without going to Congress even if responding to a threat from Iran that is not urgent or otherwise imminent.
In short, Trump and his officials want to make it easier for them to commit acts of war against both Iran and Iraqi militias.
Trying to distort the 2002 Iraq war AUMF to cover the assassination of an Iranian official just because he happened to be in Iraq
at the time is ridiculous. Congress passed the disgraceful 2002 AUMF to give George W. Bush approval to attack and overthrow the
Iraqi government. That did not and does not give later presidents carte blanche to use force in Iraq in perpetuity whenever they
feel like it. The fact that they are resorting to such an obviously absurd argument shows that they know they don't have a leg to
stand on. The Soleimani strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and there is not really any question about it. The administration's
own justification condemns them.
The president's lawlessness in matters of war underscores why it is necessary for Congress to reassert its proper constitutional
role. The Senate
passed S.J.Res. 68, the Tim Kaine-sponsored war powers resolution, by a vote of 55-45 to make clear that the president does not
have authorization for any further military action against Iran:
In a bipartisan rebuke of President Trump on Thursday, a Senate majority voted 55 to 45 to block the president from taking
further military action against Iran -- unless first authorized by Congress. Eight GOP senators joined every Democrat to protest
the president's decision to kill a top Iranian commander without complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The president has already said that he will veto the resolution, just as he vetoed the antiwar Yemen resolution last year. He
is proving once again beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no respect for the Constitution or Congress' role in matters of war.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in this and why nobody is taking that route, given that the US has signed the UN Charter,
to get a judicial review and sanction of president's actions?
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the
Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their
foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to
this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against
Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and
Iran.
When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based,
ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not
only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.
There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world.
But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the
specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the
product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of
what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create
a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that
had strong popular support at the time.
King Abdallah I
of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and
Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted
to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics
.
In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called
the Arab Federation
. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a
state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish
state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.
Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state
of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur
Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration
, which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people."
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites
for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power
relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism
– the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of
the era of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The
merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
"finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the
export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international
monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial
division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least
because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.
After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative
strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a
redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as
Lenin states :
The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships
between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism
lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had
the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not
once, but twice.
Versailles and Yalta
The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of
the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the
Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor
treaties.
Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)
This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:
At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the
Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how
Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was
envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.
Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as
"a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both
the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.
The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union
fell
In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers.
The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport
routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves
according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.
If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void.
Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the
fear of empty space.
And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was
broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for
re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all
the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.
Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål
Steigan, 1999
"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either
part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality
collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty
space.
This laid the foundation for the American
Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian
continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been
the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine,
and Syria.
The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO
eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part
of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with
Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop
until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.
So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and
there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What
creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism.
The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger
markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.
The results of two terrible wars are
again up for grabs
World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many
wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are
approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are
talking about this order of magnitude.
The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below
100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.
Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer
"the void". Donald Trump
recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8
trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new
distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.
"The Rebellion against
Sykes-Picot"
In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to
appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the
artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these
borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for
these boundaries to be revised now?
In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the
Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to
bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning
Iraq.
Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the
entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to
dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.
It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders
from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are
initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater
game.
This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.
Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the
Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of
Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an
extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in
their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.
Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after
Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.
The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003,
helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich
north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that
was their tool in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also
undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States.
And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali
admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .
And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide
Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil.
What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".
As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27
percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD
invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States
to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.
Preparations for a New World War
Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as
much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area,
which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social
movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive
training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.
There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move
will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and
maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.
The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will
require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen
without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.
And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about
100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it.
The Kurdish question is not worth that much.
This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social
and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle
East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company.
The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the
United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.
It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of
national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was
France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to
Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and
internal self rule.
All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the
battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid
the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a
hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more
details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had
created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)
Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to
support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March
in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind
it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to
arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be
developed.
And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and
Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this
project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely
multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police
under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.
The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to
be seen.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
George Mc ,
Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:
The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage
No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What
more could they do?
Dungroanin ,
Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae-
phobe.
The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in
the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.
Ready?
'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of
Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann
and his colleagues:
"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as
the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which
the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."
Got that – AUGUST?
Dungroanin ,
The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim
Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained
an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the
Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including
David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Dungroanin ,
Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner
Signatories
Arthur James Balfour
Recipient
Walter Rothschild
Dungroanin ,
'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of
the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in
Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of
a Jewish state. '
Dungroanin ,
'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third
practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would
become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was
an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not
ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:
Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that
Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious
community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '
Dungroanin ,
'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed
that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly
by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'
Dungroanin ,
The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who
therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage
back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was
not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.
According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical
grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most
part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be
imagined."
And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman
[Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"
Dungroanin ,
Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:
'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord
Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed
draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the
rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the
government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of
what they, too, regarded as their homeland.
After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and
accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President
Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31
October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who
could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had
been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he
stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the
world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to
such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and
America."
This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM,
daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another
telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian
and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did
not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'
Dungroanin ,
Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:
'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and
Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'
Dungroanin ,
The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter,
even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in
potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their
"best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people".
Dungroanin ,
There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to
invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the
ages – Money and Power.
George Mc ,
the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.
If this is true then we are all doomed.
Dungroanin ,
Not if we are aware of it George.
Dungroanin ,
Ok a summary fom Brittanica:
'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts
The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had
asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration
specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however,
said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to
them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and
seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).
The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially
in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during
World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a
pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in
neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial
possessions in India.
The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in
the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations
on July 24, 1922.
In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a
limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident
Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.
Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was
made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of
Israel in 1948.'
Dungroanin ,
But what about the timing?
Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.
'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful
because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914.
For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against
a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains
in the Levant and the Middle East.
The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal,
Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French
forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British
assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in
the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.
In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western
Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare
Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly
entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and
illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day
Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much
of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '
Dungroanin ,
The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a
miasma of blatant lies.
IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :
Can we follow the money?
When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?
When was the first world war started?
When did US declare war?
When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?
What happened in Russia at the same time?
And in Mesopotamia?
How did it end?
How did it fail to end?
What happened to the contract?
Etc.
I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.
Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient
tracks.
Dungroanin ,
'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.
7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist
archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had
made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza
9 November Letter published in Times.
Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing
footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with
Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near
East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts
of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got
wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if
successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to
contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"
End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price,
was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at
the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had
an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to
carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this,
Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British
protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.
11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '
So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?
The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not
the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade
financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United
States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports
were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers'
acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type
of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of
goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a
bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open
foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions
Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to
ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.
The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which
cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.
On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be
formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have
Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards
of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..
The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national
currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to
hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.
World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened
for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as
on the Federal Reserve.
War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by
European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves,
and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing
share of world trade.
Dungroanin ,
So the denouement :
It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost
the US banks.
However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story
is widely publicised.
Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered
by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson
(another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great
gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --
When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes,
because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they
have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism).
Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most
powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of
that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards
who are responsible for all our current malaises.
Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!
😉
George Mc ,
Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has
nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called
it). The question is: What do we do about it?
Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on
about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in
a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No
irony intended.)
Dungroanin ,
George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.
I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has
actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of
the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human
pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to
remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on
Earth.
I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever
soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it.
That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.
I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers
seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis
of morality.
I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various
peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived
without the literal grassroots!
..
As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of
him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at
similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a
enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i
just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references
– please give a link.
-- -
As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the
verity of the facts which I have presented above?
Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.
George Mc ,
The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:
Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP
thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark
initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible
extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted
in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming
oratory.
This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the
Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that
seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this
earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews,
Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very
seriously, I think.
Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical
flavour there.
I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have
bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.
milosevic ,
images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused
by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":
.content-wrap-spp img {
filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);
}
Open ,
This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in
today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them
clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)
Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry
no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for
public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.
Open ,
Look at the language used by the americans:
On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria ,
encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .
So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian
land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land.
Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not
occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.
This language needs to be known more widely.
Open ,
The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal
presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I
recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being
pushed under wrap.
What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Joe ,
Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably
in the wider world, too.
Open ,
Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global
stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the
British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates)
the planet.
In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those
of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.
* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.
Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to
spread Chaos and Disorder.
Antonym ,
Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot
ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior
(arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .
Open ,
"srael's 1947 creation"
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians
and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.
How ligitimate is that?
Antonym ,
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans,
Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.
How ligitimate is that?
Open ,
"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."
Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove
that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.
Maggie ,
Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not
been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes
by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate. https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .
To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to
understand how this corrupt system is conducted.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of
things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.
paul ,
Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."
Antonym ,
Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the
inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like
before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.
Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations
and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by
Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the
withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect
control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's
seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls
the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water,
electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have
babies!
Richard Le Sarc ,
You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!
paul ,
Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside
world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers
shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum
dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher
explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and
picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who
are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot
ideology', Antsie.
Dungroanin ,
Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her
their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's
culture.'
From the Groaniad
How many members? How many by denomination?
As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against
its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking
powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.
History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.
Capricornia Man ,
The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is
so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it
has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish
manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.
You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear
that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.
If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without
sensibility.
Maggie ,
A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.
paul ,
Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from
the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.
Dungroanin ,
BoD's??? Another random organisation!
Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get
elected? How can they be fired?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.
lundiel ,
Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class
uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.
Maggie ,
I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so
there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last
time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the
never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't
anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?
tonyopmoc ,
Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love
with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who
has banned me again.
It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.
"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."
Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if
either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a
blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.
She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.
We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It
is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.
We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.
Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.
Far better than Canestan.
Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.
Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.
Tony
Loverat ,
Hey Tony
Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere
have entertained me for many years.
Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.
paul ,
Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.
Dungroanin ,
Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists
invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately
after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving
8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.
Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to
dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be
killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such
private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy
of possession and control.
One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY
– and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that
cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to
mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you
torment beyond the grave.
Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted
currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted
meanings.
The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to
GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole
– is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem
to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying
– we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives
us.
The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives
to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of
our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control
or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little
that we have.
Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a
hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to
conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing
and being.
This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of
trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability –
but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.
If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus
corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.
Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing.
Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils
work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic
debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer
believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing
hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.
I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any
moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result
of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.
The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and
experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall
triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus
make it real – and remain truth.
Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and
the other as the will of true desire revealed.
The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in
the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to
do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and
transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully
defended narrative identity.
In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or
space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or
choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of
fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom
and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in
defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth,
and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.
paul ,
If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The
Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region
into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each
others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or
Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these
satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.
paul ,
George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.
At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the
people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.
They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America,
Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united,
Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed
and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at
peace.
When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral
hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated
to serve outside interests.
So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and
offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed
with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt,
which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space
to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria
sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the
Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How
contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing
that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should
anybody else?
paul ,
And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the
foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang
separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of
hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's,
to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and
drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone
Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?
Maggie ,
"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and
forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief
that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons
to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or
form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of
millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The
country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next
couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a
persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy
are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of
freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically
opposed to the idea of democracy .
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a
smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy,
acts alone.
I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring
the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump
giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to
commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single
living thing breathing.
No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!
paul ,
Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.
Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood
lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.
Loverat ,
My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't
identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a
few others.
Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses
evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is
changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they
really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.
The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds
should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see
why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These
idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their
irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in
their back garden.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie
crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is
homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.
milosevic ,
I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and
puppet regimes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious
leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the
drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the
Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the
alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the
hands of the Evil Brain Dead.
BigB ,
I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement
is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do
we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or
waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?
No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance.
Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI
is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and
commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that
elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend
or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting
evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said:
following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.
The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called
'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By
which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating.
Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform:
the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary
autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries
on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the
'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in
our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist
endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there
is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic
gestures in transference of our own responsibility.
'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular
complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically
exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential
expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to
have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible
right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer
bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to
nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old,
same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing
resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's
capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is
driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.
#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our
every enaction including speech-enactivism.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save
the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but
subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an
operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were
intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not
marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this
is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from
marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
BigB ,
Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no
exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert
the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If
nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.
I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of
only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all
agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for
other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the
entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is
it? 😉
The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily
manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.
That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to
pollute unhampered.
George Mc ,
I despair.
Well that's what you do.
Dungroanin ,
The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US
backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti
Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??
Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing
from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them,
nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still
nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?
Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be
bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!
Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing
Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!
Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck
poison spreading flies.
normal wisdom ,
so much disrespect here hare here.
these takfiri these giants these beards are hero
of the oded yinon plan
they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real
the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow
the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already
the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio
steppe
tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk
shirley you can sea more that
my life already
Francis Lee ,
Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time
have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist,
Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.
1. Control of technology.
2. Access to natural resources.
3. Finance.
4. Global media.
5. The means of mass destruction.
Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life
and death struggle for humanity.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe
to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US
powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of
sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is
now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the
Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly
Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside
our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot
be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).
A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps
the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one
European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western
European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by
immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been
possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest
workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious
social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The
fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr
Soros.
British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were
English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very
different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled
East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English
speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.
However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic
disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10
million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the
country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern
Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates,
and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we
have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.
BigB ,
Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil
fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming
from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?
When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this.
China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a
complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no
naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot
right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.
When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the
wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.
Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying
attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism
you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and
get back to a multipolar world.
Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.
BigB ,
Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and
rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally
'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The
imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the
non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is
not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.
I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational
predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only
paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all
opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded
imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.
There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is
why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and
absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept
the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.
#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit
growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a
collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite
growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance,
human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth
stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the
capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and
Chinese etc.
They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom
line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales
pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually
believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip
mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.
The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all
their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense
which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did
Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't
stop.
Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever
developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a
turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag
chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S
missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious
and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and
then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except
maybe for a pretty blue bow.
Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and
can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.
Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the
footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan.
Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it
does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented
Soviet Union.
The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.
Frank ,
The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.
Lots and lots of dead Americans.
Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.
Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal
state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.
Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service"
squirm in literal pain at the words.
Dungroanin ,
They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of
Kinetic energy missiles.
Their low yield nuke is their response.
The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in
Syria!
I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's
with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these
imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their
heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.
And they can pay their taxes in full.
The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some
Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the
Empire is dead.
Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.
wardropper ,
Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of
bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look
into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our
invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.
All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the
Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a
commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or
barter and the bankers will eventually starve.
Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the
depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.
Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.
After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange
became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out
paper again.
wardropper ,
My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step
in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing.
How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.
This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound
interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on
the production of others through what is called "unearned income".
Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those
flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet
SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a
word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah
in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.
Antonym ,
Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing
to the Jewish superiority myth.
Ken ,
They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That
9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if
you're not sure of this.
Antonym ,
Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.
The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New
York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .
5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.
Ken ,
"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"
Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which
spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.
The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.
Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention
the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?
Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving
Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.
Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van
that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say
something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are
your problem!"?
A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat
Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating
which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was
your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but
their arrogant stupidity,
Richard Le Sarc ,
The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of
Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth
Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most
certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your
power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.
They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with
Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as
well.
Ken ,
@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept
in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in
9/11.
Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their
colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who
seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/
Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some
excellent research based on facts not fantasy.
As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some
alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.
It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually
mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise
considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate
development across of broad spectrum of leverages?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display
the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and
awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.
normal wisdom ,
what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init
NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member
nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another
nation, especially Russia .
However, Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or
plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their
respective governments meeting this commitment, at least if the military adversary were
Russia.
These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO , an
organization with a primary objective that appears to be at odds with public opinion in many
NATO countries.
When asked if their respective countries' governments should use military force to defend a
NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which "Russia got into a serious military conflict,"
people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative.
"No" was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries -- France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Turkey.
In three more NATO countries -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland -- a plurality
rejected military intervention.
Only in five countries -- the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
and Lithuania -- did more people (a majority in each case) support such military intervention
than reject it.
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting
, the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US
account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27.
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of
responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence
for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was
Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that
though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they
have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and
has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump
administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the
west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in
Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties.
On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen.
Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had
previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and
were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to
launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they
have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense
Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon
in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious
(but not fatal) wounding
of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately
blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the
assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In
London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an
anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the
time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside
Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the
authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a
bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against
them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in
triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were
both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was
Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in
the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS
in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed
to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and
installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion
looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982
served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong
political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled
Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the
country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against
Israel today
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move.
How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation
against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against
Tehran?
This article has been republished with permission from
Just World News .
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
I do not know where you are going with this: "Are you honestly expecting the little people in the US to believe the DC chickenhawks
or the MSM again?"
Trump received massive support for firing missiles into Syria after the purported gas attacks including from ~ 50% in public
opinion polls, so IMO there is no doubt that the "little people" will buy into the next war hook, line and sinker with 65% approval
if there is a long lead-up. The Iran / 9-11 trial balloon is being floated in some rightwing media outlets.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
"It does not take a poli sci major to figure out that Flynn's immediate removal from the
Administration was essential to undermining Trump's entire foreign policy initiatives
including no new interventionist wars, peace with Russia and US withdrawal from Syria and
Afghanistan."
I always get a chuckle out of the notion that Trump and the neocons are mortal enemies. Do
you know who co-wrote Michael Flynn's "The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War
Against Radical Islam and Its Allies"? Does the name Michael Ledeen ring a bell? A profile on
Flynn in the New Yorker Magazine revealed that much of the book is practically plagiarized
from Ledeen's sorry body of books and articles. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is about as neocon as you can get with founder
Clifford D. May now serving as President, who is also a member of the Henry Jackson Society,
an outfit that is infamous for supporting the war in Iraq. Here is Ledeen on the countries
posing the greatest threat to the USA:
It's no coincidence. Russia, Iran and North Korea are in active cahoots. They are
pooling resources, including banking systems (the better to bust sanctions), intelligence
and military technology, as part of an ongoing war against the West, of which the most
melodramatic battlefields are in Syria/Iraq and Ukraine.
To judge by their language, the leaders of the three countries think the tide of world
events is flowing in their favor. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered an
ultimatum to the West, saying that Iran's war against "evil" would only end with the
removal of America. Russian President Vladimir Putin marches on in Ukraine, blaming the
West for all the trouble, and the North Koreans are similarly bellicose.
They are singing from the same hymnal. And they aim to do us in.
Right, they aim to do us in. So it turns out that the guy that Flynn is most closely
allied to ideologically is ten times scarier than Hillary Clinton. If you still have doubts
about Flynn's close ties to Ledeen, I recommend The New Yorker profile linked to above. It
states:
Flynn and Ledeen became close friends; in their shared view of the world, Ledeen
supplied an intellectual and historical perspective, Flynn a tactical one. "I've spent my
professional life studying evil," Ledeen told me. Flynn said, in a recent speech, "I've sat
down with really, really evil people" -- he cited Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Russians, Chinese
generals -- "and all I want to do is punch the guy in the nose."
Get that, people? Flynn said he'd like to punch a Russian in the nose. People get confused
over Flynn's ideological core beliefs by missing that his interest in Russia is solely based
on its usefulness against ISIS. Just because he favored a united military front against ISIS,
it does not mean that he has the same affinity for the Kremlin that someone like Stephen F.
Cohen has. Just remember that the USA and Stalin were allied against Hitler. You know how far
that went.
lundiel ,
Funny you should bring up Ledeen, just after I posted a comment about him, eh Louis?
For whatever reason, Flynn decided to work with Trump and his removal, by his compatriots, is
testament to his problematic policy shift. Who knows if he had a paradigm shift or thought he
knew which side his bread was buttered. The thing is, as Renee says, the FBI are very much
involved in internal politics.
Edward Wong considers the
growing backlash in the U.S. against the forever war, and he reviews Trump's record to show how
he has continued and expanded U.S. military engagement overseas:
Despite his denunciations of endless wars, Mr. Trump's policies and actions have gone in
the opposite direction. In December, he ordered 4,500 troops to the Middle East, adding to
the 50,000 already there. In the last two years, the American military dropped bombs and
missiles on Afghanistan at a record pace. In April, Mr. Trump vetoed a bipartisan
congressional resolution to end American military involvement in Yemen's devastating civil
war.
Perhaps most significant, Mr. Trump withdrew in 2018 from a landmark nuclear containment
deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions, setting off the chain of events that led to the
killing of General Suleimani and a retaliatory missile strike by Iran that caused traumatic
brain injuries to at least 64 American service members.
This is a pretty good summary of the damage Trump has done, but it understates how bad it
has been. In addition to the buildup of troops and the continuation of illegal, unauthorized
military involvement in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, Trump has also presided over a sharp
increase in drone strikes , and he has
loosened the rules of engagement in all U.S. bombing campaigns. In the past week, we
learned that the U.S.
dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than in any previous year of the war:
American aircraft released 7,423 munitions in the country in 2019, according to figures
published Monday by U.S. Air Forces Central Command. Coalition aircraft flew nearly 8,800
sorties during the period, over a quarter of which carried out strikes.
The tally surpasses the previous record set last year when 7,362 munitions were released
and comes amid ongoing discussion between American and Taliban officials aimed at ending
America's longest war.
Trump is sometimes described as "reluctant" to use force, but as these numbers show the
U.S. military has been dropping bombs and launching missiles in even greater numbers under
Trump. If anything, the president is only too eager to order attacks on other states when there
is no justification for them, as the illegal attacks on Syria and the illegal assassination of
Soleimani should make clear. Trump uses force when he doesn't have to, he uses more of it than
is required, and he rewards the men who use it to commit war crimes. His foreign policy is one
of rejecting
restraint . He doesn't end the endless wars because doing so would require the kind of
diplomatic engagement that he abhors, and he doesn't end them because he is a militarist. The
president is continuing and adding to the long, ugly record of our excessive use of force
overseas.
To change that, the U.S. won't just need different leadership, but we will also need an
entirely different way of thinking about the U.S. role in the world. We need to stop viewing
and treating other countries as if they are our bombing ranges. We need to recognize that our
hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to foment more conflict that kills and
displaces innocent people in huge numbers. We need to insist that our government resorts to
force only as a last resort, and then we need to make our leaders pay a political price if they
start or join unnecessary wars. If we are satisfied with empty slogans instead of genuine
peace, empty slogans and ceaseless war will be what we get.
"We need to recognize that our hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to
foment more conflict that kills and displaces innocent people in huge numbers."
That's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". The more you spend on something to fix
something else, it only causes an increase in the something else, which causes you to have
to spend more. It is the entire basis of the US defense, healthcare and legal markets.
But how else will the US force the other countries to renounce their sovereign status and
relinquish their economies to the extractive, parasitic greed of Wall Street? Andrew
Mellon's brother, Richard, used to say that being in the business of steel making, one
needs a machine gun... When one seeks to be the Hegemon (ultimate monopolist), one needs
"full spectrum dominance"!
It seems fair to assert that the vast majority of Americans have no idea how many bombs we
are dropping around the world. I suspect most assume things are mostly wound-down in
Afghanistan with troops there for no other purpose than to have troops spread throughout
the region. And we've seen with little pressure on our senators to override Trump's veto,
that Yemen doesn't rise even close to the outrage that any daily dose of tweets can muster
when it feeds Trump derangement syndrome.
Yet I do hope and pray we end the wars, the sanctions and the global military
presence.
Anyone who believes that Donald Trump was serious about reducing our military adventurism
is deluding themselves.
The theme of forcing other countries to support our aims is central to his foreign
policy, and he escalates all conflicts in hopes of forcing others to concede. None of that
was hidden during 2016. It's also consistent with how his businesses have treated small
vendors. The Trump you see is not some creation of the deep state, or a product of
aggressive investigations. It's the Trump that has always been there. He's a bully. He's
always been a bully, and he always will be a bully.
You might have missed the evidence in 2016, but you can't pretend in 2020 that Trump is
the guy who will minimize the use of force to accomplish his goals.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
"... How did they do it? Reading the reports and contemporary press (1924), plus the "Western" governments plots now with the Germans also part of the gang, everyone predicted the Soviets' experiment – who could not run a chicken raffle, let alone a huge country – would collapse by itself and the Russian wealthy emigres in Paris were preparing their return home on the back of the Great Powers armies under the command of Gen. Hoffmann. ..."
"... How did they do it? Perhaps the answer is revealed if we ask: what is different now? And the answer is that the Russian people were building a new country from the ruins of the old for themselves. In the process they were building Socialism. For the many detractors of the USSR here, that is the greatest sin. In their view, people should work as slaves for their masters: the capitalist class, coincidentally mostly Jewish, to rub salt into the wound. ..."
@FB What I find most surprising (and revolting) is the virulent rancour of many
commenters towards the Revolutionary and WWII Russians for (and I can't see any other
plausible explanation) having deposed Tsarism and Nazism respectively and, subsequently,
constructing a successful competitor to the economic orthodoxy of Capitalism.
All that done
from scratch within a short span of time on their own by their own efforts, a feat unequal in
human history.
How they did it? After all, Russia had long been the butt of jokes by other Europeans
about its backwardness, "Asiatic" crudeness and atavistic religiosity and when news of the
Japanese victory over the Russians in 1905 reached Europe they expressed openly their
schadenfreude and glee for Russia's distress in hard times, especially for "dishonouring"
European arms for being defeated by an Asiatic nation. Not only that, by 1917 Russia was
literally on its knees, the people starving, the soldiers at the front neglected, the
countryside devastated, the German armies outside Petrograd and the Kerensky government
making plans to leave the capital. Then the foreign invasions at Murmansk, Archangel, Baku,
Manchuria and Vladivostok by Entente powers, Finland, Poland, US and Japan all ganged up in
support of the Whites in the civil war that further devastated the countryside to the point
that it ceased to function as a country without money and the economy ran on "war Communism"
(the state had to provided all the basic needs to everyone). Famine ensued.
From that disaster that Russia was, gradually emerged a nation licking its wounds and
grieving its ten million plus dead (perhaps then the greatest calamity visiting a nation
ever) by putting its back to the wall and rebuilding itself, on their own and facing the
hostility of all the Great Powers through sanctions and blockades.
How did they do it? Reading the reports and contemporary press (1924), plus the "Western"
governments plots now with the Germans also part of the gang, everyone predicted the Soviets'
experiment – who could not run a chicken raffle, let alone a huge country – would
collapse by itself and the Russian wealthy emigres in Paris were preparing their return home
on the back of the Great Powers armies under the command of Gen. Hoffmann.
How did they do it? Perhaps the answer is revealed if we ask: what is different now? And
the answer is that the Russian people were building a new country from the ruins of the old
for themselves. In the process they were building Socialism. For the many detractors of the
USSR here, that is the greatest sin. In their view, people should work as slaves for their
masters: the capitalist class, coincidentally mostly Jewish, to rub salt into the wound.
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to
considerable skepticism.
In June, in an essay entitled "
Eve of
Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of
Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the
downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation
dominance."
In an October
essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in
June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the
Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an
important article, " The Secret History
of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and
underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican
Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported
statement
of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an
eventual military strike on Iran."
And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in
an essay suggesting
a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed
out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where
Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before
the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to
have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran
might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why
Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that."
So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.
But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem
Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in
the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization
Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness.
Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people
bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.
Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly
quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the
region, for the moment.
That was the week that was.
But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the
radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be
determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I
need to say about the war we are now in.
The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic
of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions,
Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani
was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what
his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course,
is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani "
a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant
ignorance of U.S. political culture.
It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable
stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi
said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider
to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man
and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump?
Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of
them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American
leaders."
To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was
around
80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know
how he led and organized the forces that helped save
Christians ,
Kurds , Yazidis and others from being
slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still "
watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool
to "manage" their war against Assad.
In an informative
interview
with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,
explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from
being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:
He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's
operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most
humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he
wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.
When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had
literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and
Baghdad
[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as
a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat
in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that
allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for
Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS
flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the
scourge of ISIS.
So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II
Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm
exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah
:
Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's
strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like
Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with
growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region
stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them
More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin
meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed
this man.
Dressed to Kill
But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus
on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when
the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and
instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and
third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.
The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance,
or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale,
regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.
From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has
rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and
has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will
fight back however it deems necessary.
The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani
assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American
pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an
Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the
Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In
anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the
equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.
Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known
assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful
strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been
active in Yemen. According to the
Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen,
which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on
Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."
Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants
to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential
administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and
presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with
drone strikes ,
special
forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty
business that even the U.S. Congress
passed a bipartisan
resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.
According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping
the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the
crap out of them.
So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior
Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump
administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody
takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even
Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any
military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was "
talking about bad stuff ."
The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international
relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their
elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to
well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make
the rules and you follow our orders.
The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the
explicit, unequivocal
demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the
country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that
the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's
ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the
Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.
We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that
Wesley Clark described in
2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened,
divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could
pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has
fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that
resistance to persist.
And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like
Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist
the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a
war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their
"interests."
What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of
material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the
Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil
facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces
of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the
U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing
and dividing that country at will.
It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which
American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to
figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's
the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it
and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a
success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's
"senseless," and remain enmired in the
cock-up theory
of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very
big slaughter.
The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly
internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by
a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to
other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint
from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."
The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist
imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious
retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize
any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of
colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings
(Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass
expulsions, if deems necessary.
That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic
sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided
political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance
to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence,
and is therefore the next mandatory target.
For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its
internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.
It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is
absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests.
But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on
KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly
committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they
are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would
declare "I am a
Wahhabi," or a U.S. President
say
"I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with
nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the
reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to
defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and
diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war
on Iran represent the U.S. "
doubling
down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman
and Robin.
Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the
finale that is coming its way.
The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the
Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the
intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani
and the Quds Force.
Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force
commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks
have been " agitating for
." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of
assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and
trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike
from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.
Per Patrick
Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected
the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to
take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war
is on and it will get worse fast.
It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying.
It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump,
Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will "
obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said
before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can
take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger
war, but it will strike back.
Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning
through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker
down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where
U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.
Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale
attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did
launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew,
including Republican Senators, were "
stunned " that he
called it off in literally the last
ten minutes . It's
to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have
Tucker
Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.
There Will Be Blood
But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now
threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that
harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response."
Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what
"proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or
other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to
retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran.
Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.
The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under
then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone
Iran
Mission Center . That Center
replaced
a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's
people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any --
Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the
agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned
with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that
could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia
militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as
having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and "
Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a
convert to Islam, and
notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."
This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a
pact with Israel "to
take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the
White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its
proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build
accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for
Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far
greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as
Israeli's capital.
The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.
The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated
everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence --
specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its
allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is
labelled "Iranian aggression."
These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to
inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot
attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to
take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis
couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more
battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn
precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S.
and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander
says :
"Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands,
Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."
This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of "
praying
for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together "
urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to
make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and
his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom
even John
McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo,
characterized
as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save
Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence
argues
the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and
stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not
going to stop.
And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game.
Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and
Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional"
negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of
economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct
condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all
sanctions.
Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically
and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of
Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already
cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will
almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN
sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too,
know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put
more
restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the
nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot
overstate their importance.
Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its
ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may
drive
Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the
EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet
the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did
to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out
of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely.
Which is its purpose.
This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama
administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of
fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer.
But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures
that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.
With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can
easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire
imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media
have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.
With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in
Israel and the
U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears
about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the
Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his
action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict
with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but "
statement.
Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound
all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran
as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it.
The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in
the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent
way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after
it's done.
Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought
us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But
not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable
-- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own
petard. As are we all.
To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war
that, as the NYTreports ,
"Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon
some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks
on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on
Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming
almost impossible to avoid.
The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense
treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for
Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United
States.
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order
the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press
and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved
and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.
On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in
the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S.
personnel in Iraq days later.
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
Unprecedented hubris is drawing a global blowback that will leave America in a very
dangerous place.
Sorin Alb/Shutterstock
January 2, 2020
|
12:01 am
Doug
Bandow Economic sanctions are an important foreign policy tool going back to America's founding.
President Thomas Jefferson banned trade with Great Britain and France, which left U.S. seamen
unemployed while failing to prevent military conflict with both.
Economic warfare tends to be equally ineffective today. The Trump administration made Cuba,
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and North Korea special sanctions targets. So this strategy has failed
in every case. In fact, "maximum pressure" on both Iran, which has become more threatening, and
North Korea, which appears to be preparing a tougher military response, has dramatically
backfired.
The big difference between then and now is Washington's shift from primary to secondary
sanctions. Trade embargoes, such as first applied to Cuba in 1960, once only prevented
Americans from dealing with the target state. Today Washington attempts to conscript the entire
world to fight its economic wars.
This shift was heralded by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which extended Cuban penalties to
foreign companies, a highly controversial move at the time. Sudan was another early target of
secondary sanctions, which barred anyone who used the U.S. financial system from dealing with
Khartoum. Europeans and others grumbled about Washington's arrogance, but were not willing to
confront the globe's unipower over such minor markets.
However, sanctions have become much bigger business in Washington. One form is a mix of
legislative and executive initiatives applied against governments in disfavor. There were five
countries under sanction when George W. Bush took office in 2001. The Office of Foreign Assets
Control currently lists penalties against the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, Central African
Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua,
North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine-Russia, Venezuela, Yemen, and
Zimbabwe. In addition are special programs: countering America's adversaries,
counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, cyber warfare, foreign election interference, Global
Magnitsky, Magnitsky, proliferation, diamond trade, and transnational crime.
Among today's more notable targets are Cuba for being communist, Venezuela for being crazy
communist, Iran for having once sought nuclear weapons and currently challenging Saudi and U.S.
regional hegemony, Russia for beating up on Ukraine and meddling in America's 2016 election,
Syria for opposing Israel and brutally suppressing U.S.-supported insurgents, and North Korea
for developing nuclear weapons. Once on Washington's naughty list, countries rarely get
off.
The second penalty tier affects agencies, companies, and people who have offended someone in
Washington for doing something considered evil, inappropriate, or simply inconvenient.
Individual miscreants often are easy to dislike. Penalizing a few dubious characters or
enterprises creates less opposition than sanctioning a country.
However, some targets merely offended congressional priorities. For instance, as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act Congress authorized sanctions against Western companies,
most notably the Swiss-Dutch pipe-laying venture Allseas Group, involved in the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline project. GOP Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson threatened Allseas:
"continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after the president signs the sanctions
legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and potentially fatal legal and economic
sanctions."
Penalizing what OFAC calls "Specially Designated Nationals" and "blocked persons" has become
Washington sport. Their number hit 8000 last year. The Economist noted that the Trump
administration alone added 3100 names during its first three years, almost as many as George W.
Bush included in eight years. Today's target list runs an incredible 1358 pages.
The process has run wildly out of control. Policymakers' first response to a person,
organization, or government doing something of which they disapprove now seems to be to impose
sanctions -- on anyone or anything on earth dealing with the target. Unfortunately, reliance on
economic warfare, and sanctions traditionally are treated as an act of war, has greatly
inflated U.S. officials' geopolitical ambitions. Once they accepted that the world was a messy,
imperfect place. Today they intervene in the slightest foreign controversy. Even allies and
friends, most notably Europe, Japan, South Korea, and India, are threatened with economic
warfare unless they accept Washington's self-serving priorities and mind-numbing fantasies.
At the same time the utility of sanctions is falling. Unilateral penalties usually fail,
which enrages advocates, who respond by escalating sanctions, again without success. Of course,
embargoes and bans often inflict substantial economic pain, which sometimes lead proponents to
claim victory. However, the cost is supposed to be the means to another end. Yet the
Trump administration has failed everywhere: Cuba maintains communist party rule, Iran has grown
more truculent, North Korea has refused to disarm, Russia has not given back Crimea, and
Venezuela has not defenestrated Nicolas Maduro.
Much the same goes for penalties applied to individuals, firms, and other entities. Those
targeted often are hurt, and most of them deserve to be hurt. But they usually persist in their
behavior or others replace them. What dictator has been deposed, policy has been changed,
threat has been countered, or wrong has been righted as a result of economic warfare? There is
little evidence that U.S. sanctions achieve much of anything, other than encourage
sanctimonious moral preening.
Noted the Economist , "If they do not change behavior, sanctions risk becoming less a
tool of coercion than an expensive and rather arbitrary extraterritorial form of punishment."
One that some day might be turned against Americans.
Contra apparent assumptions in Washington, it is not easy to turn countries into America's
image. Raw nationalism usually triumphs. Americans should reflect on how they would react if
the situation was reversed. No one wants to comply with unpopular foreign dictates.
In fact, economic warfare often exacerbates underlying conflicts. Rather than negotiate with
Washington from a position of weakness, Iran has threatened maritime traffic in the Persian
Gulf, shut down Saudi oil exports, and loosed affiliates and irregulars on American and allied
forces. Russia has challenged against multiple Washington policy priorities. Cuba has shifted
power to the post-revolutionary generation and extended its authority private businesses as the
Trump administration's policies have stymied growth and undermined entrepreneurs.
The almost endless expansion of sanctions also punishes American firms and foreign companies
active in America. Compliance is costly. Violating one rule, even inadvertently, is even more
so. Chary companies preemptively forego legal business in a process called "de-risking."
Even humanitarian traffic suffers: Who wants to risk an expensive mistake in handling
relatively low value transactions? Such effects might not bother smug U.S. policymakers, but
should weigh heavily on the rest of us.
Perhaps most important, Washington's overreliance on secondary sanctions is building
resistance to American financial dominance. Warned Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in 2016: "The
more we condition use of the dollar and our financial system on adherence to U.S. foreign
policy, the more the risk of migration to other currencies and other financial systems in the
medium-term grows."
Overthrowing the almighty dollar will be no mean feat. Nevertheless, arrogant U.S. attempts
to regulate the globe have united much of the world, including Europe, Russia, and China,
against American extraterritoriality. Noted attorney Bruce Zagaris, Washington is
"inadvertently mobilizing a club of countries and international organizations, including U.S.
allies, to develop ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions."
Merchant ships and oil tankers turn off transponders. Vessels transfer cargoes at sea. Firms
arrange cash and barter deals. Major powers such as China aid and abet violations and dare
Washington to wreck much larger bilateral economic relationships. The European Union passed
"Blocking Legislation" to allow recovery of damages from U.S. sanctions and limit Europeans'
compliance with such rules. The EU also developed a barter facility, known as Instex, to allow
trade with Iran without reliance on U.S. financial institution.
Russia has pushed to de-dollarize international payments and worked with China to settle
bilateral trade in rubles and renminbi. Foreign central banks have increased their purchases of
gold. At the recent Islamic summit Malaysia proposed using gold and barter for trade to thwart
future sanctions. Venezuela has been selling gold for euros. These measures do not as yet
threaten America's predominant financial role but foreshadow likely future changes.
Indeed, Washington's attack on plans by Germany to import natural gas from Russia might
ignite something much greater. Berlin is not just an incidental victim of U.S. policy. Rather,
Germany is the target. Complained Foreign Minister Heiko Maas "European energy policy is
decided in Europe, not in the U.S." Alas, Congress thinks differently.
However, Europeans are ever less willing to accept this kind of indignity. Washington is
penalizing even close allies for no obvious purpose other than demonstrating its power. In Nord
Stream 2's case, Gazprom likely will complete the project if necessary. Germany's Deputy
Foreign Minister Niels Annen argued that "Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend
itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions."
Commercial penalties have a role to play in foreign policy, but economic warfare is warfare.
It can trigger real conflicts -- consider Imperial Japan's response to the Roosevelt
administration's cut-off of oil exports. And economic warfare can kill innocents. When UN
Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked about the deaths of a half million Iraqi babies from
U.S. sanctions, her response was chilling: "We think the price is worth it." Yet most of the
time economic war fails, especially if a unilateral effort by one power applied against the
rest of the world.
Washington policymakers need to relearn the meaning of humility. Incompetent and arrogant
sanctions policies hurt Americans as well as others. Unfortunately, the resulting blowback will
only increase.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
Under the official Full Spectrum Dominance policy of national security, the goal is that
all other nations will be satrapies under U.S. jurisdiction. There are both punishments for
using the U.S. dollar, and punishments for not using it.
I'm afraid it will be the U.S. that suffers. Other countries will no longer subordinate
their interests to those of the U.S. I think the U.S. will have to fight all future wars,
and accept all blow-back, on her own.
It's a waste of time trying to appeal to the commonsense of the Washington Elites. They are
too arrogant and sociopathic to care, and lack anything that remotely resembles a moral
compass.
Sanctions are ineffective because the effects don't fall on those making decisions that are
adverse to the US. After fifty years of sanctions, Fidel died in bed in great comfort.
Sanctions on top of the crazy Juche policies make life hard for the ordinary North Korean,
but Kim doesn't appear to have lost any weight. Our officials pat themselves on the back
for their militancy without checking for effectiveness.
Would it be correct to say that the US embargo on oil exports to Japan in August 1941 led
to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a few months later (Dec. 7)? Was FDR trying to
provoke a war with Japan at the time?
Discuss 10021. Yes. I used to study East Asia and even reading standard collections of
articles, on the article announcing the embargo of steel and oil, and from British
controlled territories in East Asia, one's reaction would be, "This means war." (In like,
Pres. Carter said if Saudi Arabia refused to sell oil to the US we would invade and take
over oil fields.) Se our reaction was similar to that of Japan, though we would blame them
and us doing the same would be good. The US military assessment was, I have forgotten
exactly, but that Japan would be without heat, power, lighting, factories closed (no oil or
steel) and they would be on the point of starvation within, I have forgotten, 9 months to 1
1/2 years. So they "had to do something".. Their war plan was not to invade the US but
start a surprise war and strike quickly hoping to get forward bases in the Pacific and we
would need to negotiate and turn on the spigot. Japanese assessment was if they did not
achieve this by the end of 1942 they were finished. Interestingly, Hitler's assessment of
Germany's war was if they had not defeated USSR and gone after United Kingdom by the end of
1942, they, also, were finished. If I recall the report, Eleanor Roosevelt had told on US
writer the day the attack occurred, something like, "We thought they were going to attack,
but we thought it would be in the Philippines, not Hawaii."
The hubris is overwhelming. All empires fall, and the USA certainly seems headed for a
fall. However, we still have a choice. We could reject empire, stop all our illegal foreign
wars, close all our foreign military bases, drastically reduce our military budget (it is
NOT a "defense" budget; it is an offense military budget), end our campaigns of economic
sanctions, and stop being the Big Bully of the world. The result would be to free enormous
resources for our own country which ranks behind almost all other affluent nations - and
sometimes many not-so-affluent nations - in almost all indicators of ecnomic and social
well being. Replacing the military sector of our economy with civilian alternatives would
be a big boon. Weapons are notable for not continuing in the economic cycle as civilian
products do. There are many more jobs per dollars spent in the civilian sector than the
military sector. Empire is killing our country even as it is killing other countries.
Agreed, but the elites make BILLIONS from Empire & the associated militarism.
Psychopaths don't care about the damage they inflict on others, even their own countrymen,
and they won't willingly surrender the machinery that generates their wealth and privilege.
As'ad AbuKhalil analyzes the Trump administration's decision
to escalate hostilities with Iran and its regional allies.
By As`ad AbuKhalil
January 21, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - S omething big
and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran's
top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.
The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian
"resistance-axis" in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence
presence in the Middle East. Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented
Israel in the past from killing Suleimani. But with the top commander's death, the Trump
administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East
has been removed.
The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous
assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad
Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in
Syria.
The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to
U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel
and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.
For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and
officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders
or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided
directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would
unleash a series of tit-for-tat.
But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for
operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.
Different Level of Escalation
The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation.
In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd
forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS.
(Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted
a finger in the fight against ISIS.)
On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump. Here is a man who pledged
to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil -- turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear
the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee
intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S.
forces.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war
empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. There is not much a president -- even a
popular president like Barack Obama in his second term -- can do to change the course of
empire. It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to
retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from
the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress
and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry. The pressures to preserve
the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future.
But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors -- until this strike.
Trump's Obama Obsession
Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama. He decided to
violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its
adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher
than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint.
Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his
name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the
second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment
that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the
U.S.
Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani. On the one
hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only
invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.
On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or
diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside
Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have
been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside
Iran.
Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made
life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and
weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to
exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not
real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).
Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this
would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.
Iran Sending Messages
In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through
attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it
take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future
conflict would not spare their territories.
That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which
suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and
secretively) with the Iranian government. Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes -- which
constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals -- are also eager to distance
themselves from U.S. military action against
Iran . And Kuwait quickly
denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while
Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death
of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S.
attack).
The Iranian response was very measured and very specific. It was purposefully intended to
avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile
capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.
Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically
implied that it would be left to Iran's allies to engineer military responses. He also
declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to
stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6yyC897UliI
Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the
assassination. The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah
although Nasrallah -- due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his
party in the July 2006 war -- may have attained a higher status.
It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking
Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and
self-restraint. But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East
war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S.
is yet to complete.
As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California
State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon"
(1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for
Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Supporters of Donald Trump often make the point that he has not started any new wars. One
might observe that it has not been for lack of trying, as his cruise missile attacks on Syria
based on fabricated evidence and his recent assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
have been indisputably acts of war. Trump also has enhanced troop levels both in the Middle
East and in Afghanistan while also increasing the frequency and lethality of armed drone
attacks worldwide.
Congress has been somewhat unseriously toying around with a tightening of the war powers act
of 1973 to make it more difficult for a president to carry out acts of war without any
deliberation by or authorization from the legislature. But perhaps the definition of war itself
should be expanded. The one area where Trump and his team of narcissistic sociopaths have been
most active has been in the imposition of sanctions with lethal intent. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo has been explicit in his explanations that the assertion of "extreme pressure" on
countries like Iran and Venezuela is intended to make the people suffer to such an extent that
they rise up against their governments and bring about "regime change." In Pompeo's twisted
reckoning that is how places that Washington disapproves of will again become "normal
countries."
The sanctions can kill. Those imposed by the United States are backed up by the U.S.
Treasury which is able to block cash transfers going through the dollar denominated
international banking system. Banks that do not comply with America's imposed rules can
themselves be sanctioned, meaning that U.S. sanctions are de facto globally
applicable, even if foreign banks and governments do not agree with the policies that drive
them. It is well documented how sanctions that have an impact on the importation of medicines
have killed thousands of Iranians. In Venezuela, the effect of sanctions has been starvation as
food imports have been blocked, forcing a large part of the population to flee the country just
to survive.
The latest exercise of United States economic warfare has been directed against Iraq. In the
space of one week from December 29 th to January 3 rd , the American
military, which operates out of two major bases in Iraq, killed 25 Iraqi militiamen who were
part of the Popular Mobilization Units of the Iraqi Army. The militiamen had most recently been
engaged in the successful fight against ISIS. It followed up on that attack by killing
Soleimani, Iraqi militia general Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and eight other Iraqis in a drone
strike near Baghdad International Airport. As the attacks were not approved in any way by the
Iraqi government, it was no surprise that rioting followed and the Iraqi Parliament voted to
remove all foreign troops from its soil. The decree was signed off on by Prime Minister Adel
Abdul Mahdi, based on the fact that the U.S. military was in Iraq at the invitation of the
country's government and that invitation had just been revoked by parliament.
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion of
2003. The persistence of U.S. forces in the country is ostensibly to aid in the fight against
ISIS, but the real reason is to serve as a check on Iranian influence in Iraq, which is a
strategic demand made by Israel and not responsive to any actual American interest. Indeed, the
Iraqi government is probably closer politically to Tehran than to Washington, though the neocon
line that the country is dominated by the Iranians is far from true.
Washington's response to the legitimate Iraqi demand that its troops should be removed
consisted of threats. When Prime Minister Mahdi spoke with Pompeo on the phone and asked for
discussions and a time table to create a "withdrawal mechanism" the Secretary of State made it
clear that there would be no negotiations. A State Department written response entitled "The
U.S. Continued Partnership with Iraq" asserted that American troops are in Iraq to serve as a
"force for good" in the Middle East and that it is "our right" to maintain "appropriate force
posture" in the region.
The Iraqi position also immediately produced presidential threats and tweets about
"sanctions like they have never seen," with the implication that the U.S. was more than willing
to wreck the Iraqi economy if it did not get its way. The latest threat to emerge involves
blocking Iraq access to its New York federal reserve bank account, where international oil
sale revenue is kept, creating a devastating cash crunch in Iraq's financial system that might
indeed destroy the Iraqi economy. If taking steps to ruin a country economically is not
considered warfare by other means it is difficult to discern what might fit that
description.
After dealing with Iraq, the Trump Administration turned its guns on one of its oldest and
closest allies. Great Britain, like most of the other European signatories to the 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reluctant to withdraw from the agreement over
concern that Iran will as a result decide to develop nuclear weapons. According to the
Guardian , a United States representative from the National Security Council named
Richard Goldberg,
had visited London recently to make clear to the British government that if it does not
follow the American lead and withdraw from the JCPOA and reapply sanctions it just might be
difficult to work out a trade agreement with Washington post-Brexit. It is a significant threat
as part of the pro-Brexit vote clearly was derived from a Trump pledge to make up for some of
the anticipated decline in European trade by increasing U.K. access to the U.S. market. Now the
quid pro quo is clear: Britain, which normally does in fact follow the Washington lead
in foreign policy, will now be expected to be completely on board all of the time and
everywhere, particularly in the Middle East.
During his visit, Goldberg told the BBC: "The question for prime minister Johnson is: 'As
you are moving towards Brexit what are you going to do post-31 January as you come to
Washington to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the United States?' It's absolutely in
[your] interests and the people of Great Britain's interests to join with President Trump, with
the United States, to realign your foreign policy away from Brussels, and to join the maximum
pressure campaign to keep all of us safe."
And there is an interesting back story on Richard Goldberg, a John Bolton
protégé anti-Iran hardliner, who threatened the British on behalf of Trump. James
Carden, writing at The
Nation , posits "Consider the following scenario: A Washington, DC–based,
tax-exempt organization that bills itself as a think tank dedicated to the enhancement of a
foreign country's reputation within the United States, funded by billionaires closely aligned
with said foreign country, has one of its high-ranking operatives (often referred to as
'fellows') embedded within the White House national security staff in order to further the
oft-stated agenda of his home organization, which, as it happens, is also paying his salary
during his year-long stint there. As it happens, this is exactly what the pro-Israel think tank
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reportedly achieved in an arrangement
brokered by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton."
The FDD senior adviser in question, who was placed on the National Security Council, was
Richard Goldberg. FDD is largely funded by Jewish American billionaires including vulture fund
capitalist Paul Singer and Home Depot partner Bernard Marcus. Its officers meet regularly with
Israeli government officials and the organization is best known for its unrelenting effort to
bring about war with Iran. It has relentlessly pushed for a recklessly militaristic U.S. policy
directed against Iran and also more generally in the Middle East. It is a reliable mouthpiece
for Israel and, inevitably, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938.
To be sure, Trump also has other neocons advising him on Iran,
including David Wurmser, another Bolton associate, who has the president's ear and is a
consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser has recently submitted a series of memos
to the White House advocating a policy of "regime disruption" with the Islamic Republic that
will destabilize it and eventually lead to a change of government. He may have played a key
role in giving the green light to the assassination of Soleimani.
The good news, if there is any, is that Goldberg
resigned on January 3rd, allegedly because the war against Iran was not developing fast
enough to suit him and FDD, but he is symptomatic of the many neoconservative hawks who have
infiltrated the Trump Administration at secondary and tertiary levels, where much of the
development and implementation of policy actually takes place. It also explains that when it
comes to Iran and the irrational continuation of a significant U.S. military presence in the
Middle East, it is Israel and its Lobby that are steering the ship of state.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
2] "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." onebornfree http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
Therefor, if you have [always criminal] governments in the first place, then, as night
follows day, you must have [always criminal] government-made wars .
US President Donald Trump chose as the deputy chairwoman [also appointed by Trump, the
current chairman is Steve Feinberg] of the intelligence advisory board a Jewish national
security expert who is well known in the pro-Israel national security community.
Ravich, a former deputy national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, is a
senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential hawkish
pro-Israel think tank. She is also a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, founded by Michael
Chertoff, a homeland security secretary in the George W. Bush administration, and has worked
with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
She has also worked with the pro-Israel community helping to raise money for Israel
Bonds.
It is evident that Trump will win re-election and go to war with Iran afterwards. All this
Impeachment mania is simply theatre created by Jews from both sides of the political spectrum
in order to prepare Trump for the Zionist vs. Iran war.
The Greater Israel Project has always been the main objective of American foreign policy.
Now, Israel hacked the 2016 election and selected Trump as he attains the required
personality, theatre and following in order to deepen the control towards the masses.
@Reality
Check Trump destroyed the Republican contenders in the 2016 Primaries, easily. At the
time, there was minimal Zionist influence over the Trump campaign – the Jewish factor
was heavily focused on the other Republican rivals. Trump won the Primaries in a generic and
motivational fashion. Afterwards, the Zionists took over Trump and related entities. The real
MAGA Trump factor ended once the Primaries were won – enter the Zionists.
Israel rigged the election by fixing the actual voting numbers.
Robert Mercer and Zuckerberg rigged the election by compromising the masses on Facebook.
For the government of one country to designate another country's armed forces as a "terrorist
organization" is essentially a declaration of war. When in April of 2019 Netanyahu claimed
credit for Trump's designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, he created the
pseudo-law framework which became part of the justification for the Israeli-US war crime of 2
Jan. 2020.
Now the pressure is being placed squarely on the NATO countries, but especially Canada, to
follow the Netanyahu-Trump lead by designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The
Canadian branch of the ADL has even gone as far as giving an ultimatum to Justin Trudeau, an
ultimatum to make the designation within a month or else. Is the agenda to get NATO ensnared
in a US war against Iran to serve Israel?
Ever since the misrepresentation of the events of 9/11 we have been engulfed in a massive
propaganda campaign aimed at giving the appearance of legitimacy to pseudo-laws founded in
major war crimes extending from Sept. of 2001 until today. The continuing reign of the
ongoing lies and crimes of 9/11 has brought us to this point where the Axis of Deception,
whose mascot of human degradation is Jeffrey Epstein, stands against the Axis of Resistance.
In recent days a guiding spirit of the Axis of Resistance has become the martyred holy
warrior, Qassem Soleimani.
Sanctions can kill and cause great human suffering. Sanctions are presented as a humane
alternative to war, cheaper and means to avoid military action with uncertain consequences.
But history warns that sanctions aimed at bringing about capitulation or regime change lead
to full-scale conflict. If they are too effective or ineffective one side must escalate. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
Sanctions are the modern day equivalent of laying a siege on the enemy's castle. Such tactic
has been an integral part of warfare ever since the first castles were built by man.
This 21st century crusade against the muslim world is fast approaching its final climax.
Everything is going as planned by the ruler-wannabes and the whole of middle earth seems
destined to be theirs for once and for all.
We are all contemporary witnesses to the war campaign of the MILLENNIUM that was
prescribed by the bible and the tora and few recognize the historic significance.
Will we get to see which of the New Testament and the Tora prevails, not that we want to,
but because we have no choice but to see? Or will there be a rarest of rare black swan event
that will produce an unanticipated course of history?
The war on Iran is in the formative stage with sanctions and the murder of Soleimani who was
helping defeat the AL CIADA aka ISIS terrorists who were created and funded and armed by the
US and Israel and Britain and NATO and for that reason he was murdered...
Terrific article, but I would not use the word "infiltrate" when speaking of theneocons in
the Trump administration. They are there by open invitation by the biggest neo-con of them
all – Trump.
If you review newspaper articles concerning Iran from 2003 onward, you see very clearly the
slow escalation to war and that that war with Iran is inevitable no matter who is in office.
In my opinion, that is why Trump is in office. Maybe they thought there would be too much lag
time with theother Republican or Democrat candidates when he was running in 2016, but if he
gets re-elected, we will see war with Iran. That is thepurpose of the sanctions. To provoke
not only thepeople to war against the gov't, but to provoke the government to war. We did it
to the Japanese, we did it to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time, and we are doing it now.
It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete and utter
chaos,. That is what Israel wants, and that is exactly what they are going to get. Israel has
been trying to help themselves to the land of other countries for many years. You cannot do
that with a vialbe and unified country. You have to break it all up first – turn it
tribal.
But when it is all over, and the Shia Muslims who hate us now, hate us more after their
countries have been all bombedto smithereens, and when China and Russia, who are biding their
time, are strong enough, we will eventually get a taste our just desserts.
I hope that if any Iranian or English people are reading this, that they know that none of
this was the idea of the average American. That we have actually lost our nation and have no
control over it anymore. And that the only Americans left supporting this foreign "policy"
are Evangelical holy rollers from the South and Midwest, dinosaur Baby Boomers who still
think it is civil defense, dupes and suckers who buy into the "support the troops" cult of
military, and the slowly decreasing number of misinformed and brainwashed Americans who get
their "news" from the (((corporate media))).
@anastasia
Agree that "It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete
and utter chaos ." In "Greater Israel and the Balkanization of the Middle East : Oded Yinon's
Strategy for
Israel " globalresearch.ca ,
Adeyinke Makinde argues that balkanization has always formed a part of the rationalization of
political Zionism stating "After the establishment of Israel in 1948 , a national policy of
weakening Arab and Muslim states , balkanising them, or keeping them under a neo-colonial
state of affairs has persisted . The prevailing logic was and always has been that any stable
, nationalist government in the Arab world poses an existential threat to Israel ."
"... Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018. The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former, said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group. ..."
"... A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack. ..."
Russia urged to convene a briefing with the participation of OPCW
Fact-Finding-Mission (FFM) experts, who worked on the report on alleged chemical attack in
Syria's Duma in April 2018, to reach an agreement on this controversial case, Alexander
Shulgin, Russia's envoy to OPCW, said at a Security Council meeting. On Monday, members of the
UN Security Council, at the request of the Russian mission,
held an informal meeting to assess the situation around the FMM's Final Report on the incident
in the Arab Republic .
In November, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks published an email, sent by a member of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission to Syria to his superiors,
in which he voiced his "gravest" concerns over the redacted version of the report in question,
which he co-authored. According to the OPCW employee, the document, which is understood to have
been edited by the secretariat, misrepresented facts, omitted certain details and introduced
"unintended bias," having "morphed into something quite different to what was originally
drafted."
"We once again propose to resolve the conflicting situation through the means of holding of a briefing under the auspices of the OPCW and, possibly, with the assistance of
all concerned countries and with the participation of all experts of the
Fact-Finding-Mission, who worked on the Duma incident, to find a consensus on this resonant
incident," Shulgin said on Monday.
Shulgin also suggested that the working methods of FFM must be improved, stressing the
necessity for its members to personally visit sites of alleged use of chemical weapons and
collect evidence samples, as well as strictly adhere to the chain of custody over the items of
evidence and guarantee geographically-balanced makeup of the mission.
In July, Shulgin said that the head of the mission probing claims of a chemical attack in
Duma had never travelled to this city.
Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018.
The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while
the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former,
said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group.
A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United
States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities
with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack.
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial
and energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the
MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the
basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior
violence.
It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.
The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we
want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a
little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we
'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or
some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.
To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like
all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's
basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But
mostly take by force .
No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force
(land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just
once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want
to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We
will use violence and armed force to make this happen.
But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead
it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next
poor bastards who stand up to us."
. A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).
He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and
maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its
crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse
underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those
training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty
navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.
Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be
considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago,
have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented.
I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to
commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc |
98
Internal emails from Boeing staff members working on the 737 MAX were made public earlier
this month have revealed new safety problems for the company's flagship 777X, a long-range,
wide-body, twin-engine passenger jet, currently in development that is expected to replace the
aging 777-200LR and 777-300ER fleets, reported
The Telegraph .
Already, damning
emails released via a U.S. Senate probe describes problems during the MAX development and
qualification process. The emails also highlight how Boeing employees were troubled by the 777X
– could be vulnerable to technical issues.
Emails dated from June 2018, months before the first MAX crash, said the "lowest ranking and
most unproven" suppliers used on the MAX program were being shifted towards the 777X
program.
>
The email further said the "Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X
with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule."
Another Boeing employee warned about cost-cutting measures via selecting the "lowest-cost
suppliers" for both MAX and 777X programs.
"We put ourselves in this position by picking the lowest-cost supplier and signing up to
impossible schedules. Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven suppliers receive the
contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just the Max but also the 777X! Supplier
management drives all these decisions."
Like the MAX, the 777X is an update of an outdated airframe from decades ago, which is an
attempt by Boeing to deliver passenger jets that are more efficient and provide better
operating economics for airlines.
Back in September, we
noted how the door of a new 777X flew off the fuselage while several FAA inspectors were
present to evaluate a structural test.
Boeing's problem could stem from how it used the "lowest-cost suppliers" to develop
high-tech planes on old airframes to compete with Airbus. The result has already been
devastating: two MAX planes have crashed, killing 346 people, due to a malfunctioning flight
control system, and 777X failing a structural ground test.
Boeing's C-suite executives push for profitability (at the apparent expense of safety) has,
by all appearances, been a disaster; sacrificing the safety of the planes to drive sales higher
to unlock tens of billions of dollars in stock buybacks - that would allow executives to dump
their stock options at record high stock prices.
Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few
People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the
Conquered.
Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by
Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's
way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat
Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active
Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War
while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.
That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.
WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding
Nation-States with Sanctions.
Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using
Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind
- AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I
am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.
Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the
works of the USA military machine
Notable quotes:
"... I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet. ..."
"... Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption, and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted villages, a la My Lai. ..."
"... Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies', that's not quite as obvious. ..."
"... And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long progeny. ..."
"... So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA. ..."
"... Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it happened on his 'watch'. ..."
"... We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations remains to be seen. ..."
"... Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse. In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve honesty and common sense? ..."
Previously, most discussions of the Trump presidency reflexively proceeded to either visceral
disgust etc or accolades of some species. Trumps words and manners dominated. As things
developed, and actual results were recorded, a body of more sober second thought developed.
And a variation on these more experience/reality based assessments is what b has delivered
above.
Some of my points that follow are repeats, some are new. On the whole I see Trump as a
helpful and positive-result really bad President.
I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural
catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having
destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet.
As one aspect of this cultural catastrophe, let's refer back to the United States attack
on Indochina, which accomplished millions of dead and millions of wounded people, and birth
defects still in uncounted numbers as a legacy of dioxin etc laden chemical warfare. The
millions of dead included some tens of thousands of American soldiers, and even more wounded
physically, and even more wounded 'mentally'.
Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within
the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism
for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption,
and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted
villages, a la My Lai.
When asked what it was all about, Kissinger lied in an inadvertently illuminating way:
"basically nothing" was how he put it, if memory serves.
During and after the attack on Indochina, the US trained, aided, financed, etc active
death squads in Central and South America, demonstrating that the United States was an equal
opportunity death dealer.
Now this was a bit of a meander away from the Trump topic, but note that Trump came to
power within the above cultural context and much more pathology besides, talking about ending
the warfare state. Again, this is not an attempt to portray Trump as either sincere or
insincere in that policy. In terms of ideas, it was roughly speaking a good idea.
Another main part of the Trump message was 'let's rebuild America'. And along with the
de-militarization and national program of rejuvenation there was the 'drain the swamp' meme,
which again resonated. And once again, I am not arguing that Trump was sincere, or for that
matter insincere. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make: which could essentially
by reduced to: what will be the actual meaning and potential impact of Trump?
Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm
is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed
repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies',
that's not quite as obvious.
And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from
the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine
has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long
progeny.
So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable
control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA.
Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption
of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it
happened on his 'watch'.
Now the deep cultural, including political, pathology in the United States, in its many
manifestations remain. We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of
part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his
disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations
remains to be seen.
The frantic attempt to deflect attention from and give mainly derisive media coverage to
Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming
to dismantle the military empire project?
Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but
related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and
bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse.
In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve
honesty and common sense?
Totally agree with Daniel: "Trump is president and commander in chief. The buck stops with
him. If he is too weak or stupid to prevent himself from getting manipulated by his creepy
cadaverous son-in-law and the bunch of fanatics he hired and surrounds himself with he is
unfit for the job. But given his many transgressions and war mongering ways, it's more likely
he's just another fraud like every other POTUS."
American hubris and bully-ism in the international arena has steadily grown since the end of
the Cold War, since they somehow believe their system won. With Trump, the mask is off. "I'm
taking the oil". In fact, he's taking the oil even though he can't do much with it (can't
develop it, limited selling options, etc). Pure child-like "it's mine, i'd rather break it
than give it back".
I have decreasing confidence that there will not be a nuclear war. It seems to be
increasingly likely that an overstretched American army will, at some point somewhere, be so
outmaneuvered that they will hit the panic button. The world is currently counting on the
Russians, Iranians, Chinese to be the sober ones, the cooler heads, the ones who hurriedly
clear the roads for the drunk adolescent American roaming the streets.
Read wagelaborer (3) because what he says is the core to the understanding US Foreign
policy, everything else is unimportant, a side dish, a noise. One possible thing missing is
that in Europe the prime objective for the US is to prevent Russia and Germany coupling up,
keeping the two tribes separate is the goal, at whatever cost.
The pricing of oil (and oil derivatives) in dollars is a replacement for the gold-backed
dollar scrapped by Nixon in early 70s. The pricing is a must, losing it would undermine the
dollar as a reserve currency. Each year, those who need to buy oil plus oil derivates have to
find trillions for the buy the black gold.
Consider: Each day some 100ml barrels are produced, that's 36bn barrels a year, at a cost
of $75 per barrel it's some $2.7tr needed to buy the stuff. And that's just the crude. Add
the derivatives (per barrel more expensive than crude), and one's talking some $5-7tr to be
found. That's what allows the US to print either IOU's i.e. the Treasuries or actual cash
without any worry whatever the IOU's will ever be brought back to the mainland US in haunting
inflation.
The time the pricing of oil in dollars goes, the US hegemony gets a fatal knock, from
which it would be near impossible to recover bar staring a war.
It's clear that Trump does not understand - or has not understood until recently - the true
goals of US foreign policy (maintaining the dollar hegemony first, promoting US business
interests second). His notion of winning a war is apparently being able to send the troops
home. This is at odds with the "deep state", which has no problem spending money that it sees
as coming from others, as long as that money keeps coming in and it's being spent in the
furtherance of geopolitical goals. Hence the continued US military presence in Afghanistan
must be furthering, if not fulfilling, one or more geopolitical goals. Those goals most
likely do not include "defeating terrorism". Trump may well not be aware of what the goals
are.
It may be useful to draw a comparison between the US military presence in Afghanistan and
its presence in Vietnam. Like Afghanistan, Vietnam seems to have been a near-pointless
expenditure of resources and people - on the surface. From the "deep state's" point of view,
however, Vietnam served as a bulwark against encroachment by the non-dollar-aligned part of
the world. Vietnam was only abandoned once a much bigger prize became available - China.
Given Afghanistan's location, it stands to reason that it too is serving as a bulwark and
that its importance in the "deep state's" eyes will diminish (if not disappear) once Iran
and/or Russia experiences a "change of heart".
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
"... The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything that our rulers don't want done. ..."
"... There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval Office. ..."
"... The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election" BS. ..."
Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if the
rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never
allow that.
The elections are a farce, by the way. We have no way to know how people vote, because
they put in electronic voting machines after the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme
Court. We no longer have any idea how people voted, the talking heads on the TV just give us
the name of the selected on, on Election Night.
As Lavrov frequently points out, the "rules-based order" is the US attempt to overthrow
established international law, and replace it with "rules" invented by the US and changed to
suit US goals, i.e. total spectrum dominance.
Note that although Trump has been attacked by the Deep State, the Democrats and the media
24/7 since 2016, the only complaint they have about his blatantly illegal assassination of
Soleimani is that "he didn't tell us first". There is NO mention of international or national
laws which outlaw such assassinations.
The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on
board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken
because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all
he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything
that our rulers don't want done.
@juliania: There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to
military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval
Office.
The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or
diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election"
BS.
Americans may be sick of the US' forever war policy, but not as sick of it as the rest of
the world is. And USicans aren't sick enough of it to turf out both parties and start
again...
There is a silver lining to that. If another term of Trump inspires the Europeans to
abrogate NATO and put an end to that alliance and create their own NEATO ( North East
Atlantic Treaty Organization) withOUT America and withOUT Canada and maybe withOUT some of
those no-great-bargain East European countries; then NEATO Europe could reach its own
Separate Peace with Russia and lower that tension point.
And America could bring its hundred thousand hostages ( "soldiers") back home from
not-NATO-anymore Europe.
The US is trying to stop Eurasia's economic and political integration in order to delay its
own demise, say international observers, explaining what message the US sent to the
Russia-China-Iran "triumvirate" by killing Quds Commander Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of
Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and
commander of the Quds Force, in a targeted US air strike on 3 January came on the heels of
joint naval exercise launched by Russia, Iran and China in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of
Oman.
The "growing Russia-China-Iran trilateral convergence", as The Diplomat
dubbed it in late December, is seemingly
hitting a raw nerve in Washington :
speaking to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) on 2 January, Rear Admiral
Khanzadi, the Iranian navy commander, said that Washington and its allies had held an emergency
meeting aimed at disrupting the drills.
US Opposes Rapprochement of Russia, China and
Iran Amid Policy of 'Maximum Pressure'
"Recent violent US attacks against Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria, culminating in the
killing of Iran's Major General Qasem Soleimani, are, in the wider geopolitical sense, meant
to send signals to the building Eurasian triumvirate to cease their collaborative activities,
let alone longer-term strategic and Belt and Road Initiative-linked designs," says Pye Ian,
an American economic analyst and private equity executive.
According to Ian, the US decision to step up pressure on Tehran might be stemming from
Washington's apparent belief that Iran is "the 'weakest link' in the strengthening Eurasian
alliance".
However, "Russia, China and Iran cannot be attacked overtly, let alone invaded, occupied or
'regime changed'," the economic analyst highlights.
Christopher C. Black, a Toronto-based international criminal lawyer with 20 years of
experience in war crimes and international relations, echoes the American economist.
"It is in response to the close relationship between Russia, Iran and China and it is no
coincidence that this murder took place just as the joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf
came to an end," he said. "Further, it is a threat to Russian strategic interests in Syria
and to Syria itself."
Apart from this, the move indicates that "one of the reasons for US pressure on Iran is to
control the oil supply to China in order to cripple China's development," Black suggests.
Russia and its military successes in the region have become yet another irritant for
Washington, according to Max Parry, an independent American journalist and geopolitical
analyst.
"The US likely feels the need to re-assert itself as a hegemonic power in the region,
considering it is Moscow that emerged as the new honest peace broker in the Middle East with
the Syrian conflict," Parry notes. "Russia completely outmanoeuvred Washington and by the end
of the war, Turkey was practically in Moscow's camp. Trump has reset US foreign policy with
the withdrawal from Syria and the targeting of Iran."
By killing Soleimani, the US "has completely overplayed its hand and this could be the
beginning of the end for Washington because a war with Iran would be no cakewalk", he
emphasises.
According to Ian, in addition to being a thorn in Washington's flesh, Moscow, Beijing and
Tehran have something else in common: the three nations have increasingly been drifting away
from the US dollar.
The trend followed the Trump administration's:
· unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) in
May 2018;
· trade war waged against the People's Republic of China by Washington since March
2018;
· series of anti-Russian sanctions imposed against Moscow under the pretext of the
latter's interference in the US 2016 presidential elections, something that Russia resolutely
denies.
The economic analyst explains that "the dollar's universal confidence trick requires uniform
adherence, by natural adoption or by force". While the US allies remain obedient to the dollar-
dominated system, those who resisted it such as Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Gaddafi and
Venezuela under Chavez "triggered some Atlanticist force, either overtly or clandestinely, in
order to try and put those nations back on a compliant page."
However, "the current state of dollar printing by the US Fed ad infinitum cannot last
forever," Ian stresses.
"The global East and South are already ahead of Transatlantic banking, in a sense, by
shifting further out of the dollar and Treasury securities into their own, or bilateral,
currency exchanges, gold, and/or domestic or collaborative cryptocurrency endeavours," he
says.
Russia, China, Iran, as well as India and some other Eurasian nations are switching to
trading in local currencies and
continuing to amass gold at a steady pace . Thus, for instance, Russia produced over 185.1
tonnes of gold in the first six months of 2019; the country's bullion reserves reached 72.7
million troy ounces (2,261 tonnes) as of 1 December 2019. For its part, the People's Bank of
China (PBoC) has accumulated 1,948.3 tonnes of the precious metal as of December 2019,
according to World Gold Council.
Ian foresees that if the world's nations continue to shift
out of US Treasury obligations and choose alternative currencies for energy pricing,
trading and reserves recycling, it may "cause US interest rates to fly higher, cratering
consumer, institutional and public debt obligations and re-importing an obscene level of
inflation back into the US".
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of
Sputnik.
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
On the one hand he is a creature of the technocratic neo-liberal order which is committed to
unilateralism and "post-nation-statism". On the other hand he is a creature of France – a
nation with strong (though easily forgotten) nationalist traditions stretching back to King
Louis XI, the founder of the first modern nation state, Cardinal Mazarin who organized the
Peace of Westphalia that established modern thoughts on nation states, Jean-Baptiste Colbert
who's economic theories gave meaning to economic sovereignty in the modern era, to Sadi Carnot
who's application of Colbertist economics and resistance to British manipulation got him killed
in 1895, to Charles de Gaulle, who established the 5 th Republic and devoted his
life to resisting the Deep State on the basis of peaceful relations with Russia and China.
Then there is the populist rage of the French which dates back to the colorful days of the
French revolution which established a unique tradition of mass revolts against the established
order when it becomes abusive of the people this provides a "bottom up" factor which any
politician desirous of keeping their heads attached to their necks must keep in mind.
For these two reasons (top down traditions of statecraft and bottom up traditions of freeing
corrupt leaders' of their heads from their bodies), Macron has found himself joining President
Trump's call to re-introduce Russia back into the G8, and has made major maneuvers to re-orient
France towards a pro-China policy becoming the guest of honor at China's International
Expo where $15 billion of deals were signed on energy, aerospace and agricultural
initiatives.
Macron has even enraged Europe's technocratic elite by questioning the foundations of the
European Union's viability while at the same time aptly
criticizing NATO of 'brain death' . The crisis caused by the unravelling of the globalist
vision of a post-nation state world order has resulted in an emergency conference in London to
figure out how NATO can be saved from its total irrelevance. Faced with the anti-NATO sentiment
expressed by Macron and Trump in recent months, and the emergence of the new multipolar order
which is attracting ever more nation states (including NATO members) into its sphere of
influence, Jens Stoltenberg
made the desperate assertion that China must be made a target of the military alliance
saying that China "is coming closer to us, investing heavily in infrastructure. We see them
in Africa, we see them in the Arctic, we see them in cyber space and China now has the
second-largest defense budget in the world."
The NATO Disorder and the Economic
Meltdown
Today, after decades of neoliberal practices have undermined the once powerful
agro-industrial capacities of France under the "post-industrial" Euro, it has become evident
that austerity and increased taxes are the only solutions which the technocrats running the
European Central Bank will permit. Since Euro membership forbids any nation to create a debt
which is greater than 3% of GDP, the means to generate sufficient state credit to build large
scale projects needed for an economic recovery do not exist.
In other words, from the standpoint of the Trans-Atlantic rules of the game, the situation
is hopeless.
For all of his problems, Macron isn't blind to this fact and can see that Russia and China
have successfully transformed the international order with the advent of the Belt and Road
Initiative. He can see that this system uniquely offers western leaders (who wish to keep their
heads in the face of the oncoming economic collapse), the only viable means to provide jobs,
security and long term economic growth to their people since it is rooted in long term, open
system thinking which is not connected to Hobbesian closed system geopolitics. De Gaulle would
be happy to see this shift.
The Revival of de
Gaulle
Charles de Gaulle was among a network of leaders who fought valiantly against the cancerous
deep state that had formerly supported fascism in WWII. While Franklin Roosevelt had to
do battle with such pro-fascist organizations such as the JP Morgan-funded Liberty League
and Council on Foreign Relations from 1933-1945, President De Gaulle had to contend with the
pro-Nazi Petain government whose agents immediately took over controls of France in the wake of
WWII, and didn't go away upon the General's ascension to the Presidency during the near
collapse of the 5 th republic in 1959.
De Gaulle strategically fought tooth and nail against the pro-NATO fascists led by General
Challe who attempted two coup attempts against De Gaulle in
1960 and 1961 and later worked with MI6 and the CIA using private contractors like Permindex to
arrange over
30 assassination attempts from 1961-1969.
De Gaulle was not only successful at taking France out of
the NATO cage in 1966 , but he had organized to ensure Algeria's independence against the
will of the entire deep state of France who often worked with Dulles' State Department to
preserve France's colonial possessions. De Gaulle also recognized the importance of breaking
the bipolar rules of the Cold War by reaching out to Russia calling for a renewed Europe "
from the Atlantic to the Urals " and also an alliance with China with the intent of
resolving the fires lit by western arsonists in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam whose independence
he was committed to guaranteeing. De Gaulle wrote of his plan in his Memoires:
"My aim, then, was to disengage France, not from the Atlantic Alliance, which I intended
to maintain by way of ultimate precaution, but from the integration carried out by NATO under
American command; to establish relations with each of the states of the East bloc, first and
foremost Russia, with the object of bringing about a détente, followed by understanding
and cooperation; to do likewise, when the time was ripe, with China"
After arranging a treaty with China's Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, India's Prime Minster Nehru
and the leadership of Cambodia in 1963 to create a China led block to resolve the crisis in
Southeast Asia with France's help, De Gaulle became the first western head of state to
recognize China and establish diplomatic relations with the Mainland on January 31, 1964. He
saw that China's growth would become a driving force of world development and saw a friendship
based on scientific and technological progress to be a source of France's renewal. Attacking
the false dichotomy of "Free liberal capitalism" vs "totalitarian communism", De Gaulle
expressed the Colbertist traditions of "dirigisme" which have historically driven France's
progress since the 17 th century when he said "We are not going to commit
ourselves to the empire of liberal capitalism, and nobody can believe that we are ever going to
submit to the crushing totalitarianism of communism."
The De Gaulle-Kennedy
Alliance
De Gaulle had great hopes to find like-minded anti-colonialist leaders and collaborators who
were fighting against the deep state in other countries. In America he was inspired by the
fresh leadership of the young John F. Kennedy whom he first met in Paris in May 1961. Of
Kennedy he wrote "The new President was determined to devote himself to the cause of
freedom, justice, and progress. It is true that, persuaded that it was the duty of the United
States and himself to redress wrongs, he would be drawn into ill-advised interventions. But the
experience of the statesman would no doubt have gradually restrained the impulsiveness of the
idealist. John Kennedy had the ability, and had it not been for the crime which killed him,
might have had the time to leave his mark on our age."
De Gaulle's advice to Kennedy was instrumental in the young President's decision to stay out
of a land war in Vietnam and led to Kennedy's
National Security Action Memorandum 263 to begin a phase out of American military from
Vietnam on October 2, 1963. Kenney and De Gaulle both shared the view (alongside Italian
industrialist Enrico Mattei with whom both collaborated) that Africa, Asia and South America
needed advanced scientific and technological progress, energy sovereignty and sanitation in
order to be fully liberated by the colonial structures of Europe. All three fought openly for
this vision and all three fell in the line of battle (one to a plane crash in 1961, another to
several shooters in Dallas in 1963 and the last to a staged "colour revolution" in 1969.)
[1]
If De Gaulle, Kennedy and Mattei were alive today, it is guaranteed they would recognize in
the Belt and Road Initiative and broader Eurasian alliance, the only viable pathway to a future
worth living in and the only means to save the souls of their own nations. The question is:
Will Macron continue on this Gaullist path and will other nations grow the balls to follow
suite, or will those imperial fascists who overthrew De Gaulle's vision in 1969 succeed once
more?
Footnote
[1] It is noteworthy that thesame
Montreal-based Permindex Corporationwhich was expelled from France for having
orchestrated at least two attempts on De Gaulle's life was found by New Orleans D.A. Jim
Garrison to be at the heart of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Barbara Boyd correctly called Kent testimony "obsine" becase it was one grad neocon
gallisination, which has nothing to do with real facts on the ground.
She attributed those dirty games not only to the USA but also to London.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must understand how Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.
In a full-blown U.S. war
with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.
Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made
refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed
by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,"
Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.
With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq,
President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision
Trump appears to have made while
golfing at Mar-a-Lago .
Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.
The Iranians may
respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt
the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.
In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic
stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning
14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some
3,500 more are now on their way.
"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton
tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his
spirit lives on.
What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a "
bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.
No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of
U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who
invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to
occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).
That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat,
and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will
essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.
"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them
freedom,"
Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback
to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you
tried.
This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as
it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial
votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities,
including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
Trump is betraying them spectacularly.
Yet too many Democrats are
merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the
strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg
offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others
complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."
It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these
complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have
to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in
Washington.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to
another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more
dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.
Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely
reward -- real opposition. Call him on it
before it's too late.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito
Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the
effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival
nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', '
Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly,
who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.
Of course, the major difference with movie's Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In
the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our
Freemerika , Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to
dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous
presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution
or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to
advise him. They decide the ' when and if' of such dramatic actions like the other day's
drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was
insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ' This means war!', Mr. Trump gave
the order for the assassination but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised
him.
To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best
. LBJ's use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man
making that call.
Or Nixon's Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son's
ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama's use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest
arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire's wizards who advised them.
When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of
this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a
Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people
are!
Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the
empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of
crossing into another nation's sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this
Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they
now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man
was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid
in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS
terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that,
in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq period! Thus,
the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also
frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian
sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn
College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on
the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also
host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be
reached at [email protected]
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they
never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way
that first appears.
Stephen Fry / @stephenfry
You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find
out the startling truth by listening to
#MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun
12th Jan
Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn
12 January 2020
О 1 hour, 34 minutes
Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
law.
Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
as offenders of human rights.
It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
and the American financier's crusade for justice.
Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
undervalue the law at our peril.
Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella
Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian
Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner
Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.
The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose.
Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the
biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American,
we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without
hesitation!
shoe 9:18 PM - 4 Jan 2020
fuck healthcare, fuck our veterans, fuck our crumbling infrastructure, fuck the homless
MOMMY MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDS MORE MONEY HELL YEAH
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the
statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing
nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had
occurred.
One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a
military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the
popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were
wounded.
"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US
military's Africa Command said.
But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest
supporters on the world stage.
He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani
isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be
dragged into it."
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
T he drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani
evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to
World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe
revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And
escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the
multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in
nearby waters.
What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated.
Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval
exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S.
in the region.
Cui Bono?
It is time to call a spade a spade. The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities
between Iran and the U.S. is Israel (with Saudi Arabia in second place). As you no doubt are
aware, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He continues to
await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving. Likewise, it appears that you, your
son-in-law, and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are as susceptible to the influence of Israeli
prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush. Some commentators are citing your
taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable.
Looking back just a decade or so, we see a readily distinguishable pattern.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to
destroy Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Usually taciturn, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security
adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned in August 2002 that "U.S. action
against Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron." Bush paid no heed, prompting
Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized"; that Sharon has him "wrapped around his
little finger." (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.)
In Sept. 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Secretary
of the 9/11 Commission, stated publicly in a moment of unusual candor, "The 'real threat' from
Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel."
Zelikow did not explain how Iraq (or Iran), with zero nuclear weapons, would not be deterred
from attacking Israel, which had a couple of hundred such weapons.
Zombie Generals
When a docile, Peter-principle, "we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan" U.S. military
leadership sends more troops (mostly from a poverty draft) to be wounded and killed in
hostilities with Iran, Americans are likely, this time, to look beneath the equally docile
media for answers as to why. Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel? Many
Americans will wake up, and serious backlash is likely.
Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic
terrorist attacks. And when bodybags arrive from abroad, there may be for families and for
thinking Americans, a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to
pull the wool over their eyes.
Those who may prefer to think that Gen. Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on
Oct. 13, 2004, the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from
words straight from Netanyahu's mouth. On Aug. 3, 2010, in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your
predecessor, we provided some "Netanyahu in his own words."
We include an excerpt here for historical context:
"Netanyahu's Calculations
Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he
enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your [Obama's] reluctance
even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as
affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship.
During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly
confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.
Netanyahu's attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli
TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu)
was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them.
The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward -- and wonderment at -- an America so
easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:
" America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't
get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."
Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be "a con artist who
thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes," adding
that such behavior "does not change over the years."
Recommendation
We ended VIPS' first Memorandum For the President (George W. Bush) with this critique of
Secretary of State Colin Powell's address at the UN earlier that day:
"No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is
"irrefutable or undeniable" [as Powell claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell
today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond
the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and
from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
We are all in a limina l moment. We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid
doubling down on catastrophe.
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and Division Director, State
Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Graham Fuller, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate
VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense
watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel
(ret.)
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate
VIPS)
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
"... Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that. ..."
ran hawks have been agitating for open conflict with Iran for years. Tonight, the Trump
administration obliged them by assassinating the top IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
and the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah in a drone strike in Baghdad:
Hard to understate how big this is
• Qassem Suleimani is Iran's most powerful mil figure in Region
• He runs Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
• Both men designated by US as Terrorist
• Muhandis was at US embassy attack protest, calls himself "Suleimani soldier"
Reuters reports
that a spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq also confirmed the deaths:
Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy
in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.
Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the
more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that
guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners
in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that
he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a
high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new
war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers,
diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they
were this morning, and the president is responsible for that.
It is hard to convey how irrational and destructive this latest action is. The U.S. and Iran
have been dangerously close to war for months, but the Trump administration has made no effort
to deescalate tensions. All that it would take to push the two governments over the brink into
open conflict is a reckless attack that the other side cannot ignore. Now the U.S. has launched
just such an attack and dared Iran to respond. The response may not come immediately, but we
have to assume that it is coming. Killing Soleimani means that the IRGC will presumably
consider it open season on U.S. forces all across the region. The Iran obsession has led the
U.S. into a senseless new war that it could have easily avoided, and Trump and the Iran hawks
own the results.
Trump supporters have often tried to defend the president's poor foreign policy record by
saying that he hadn't started any new wars. Well, now he has, and he will be responsible for
the consequences to follow.
When US politicians comment about the country's adversaries, a an official narrative
harangue of disinformation and Big Lies follows so often these figures likely no longer can
distinguish between truth and fiction.
Washington's hostility toward Iran has gone on with nary a letup since its 1979 revolution
ended a generation of US-installed tyranny, the country regaining its sovereignty, free from
vassal state status.
On Monday, White House envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook stuck to the fabricated
official narrative in discussing Iran at the State Department.
He falsely called Sunday's Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraqi and Syrian sites
"defensive."
They had nothing to do with "protect(ing) American forces and American citizens in Iraq" or
Syria, nothing to do with "deterr(ing) Iranian aggression" that doesn't exist and never did
throughout Islamic State history -- how the US and its imperial allies operate, not Iran, the
region's leading proponent of peace and stability.
Hook lied saying Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah paramilitaries (connected to the country's Popular
Mobilization Forces) don't serve "the interests of the Iraqi people."
That's precisely what they do, including their earlier involvement in combatting
US-supported ISIS.
Hook turned truth on its head, accusing Iran of "run(ning) an expansionist foreign policy"
-- what US aggression is all about, not how Tehran operates.
Like other Trump regime officials, he threatened Iran, a nation able to hit back hard
against the US and its regional imperial partners if attacked -- why cool-headed Pentagon
commanders want no part of war with the country.
Kata'ib Hezbollah, other Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, and the vast majority of Iraqi
civilians want US occupation of their country ended.
For decades, US direct and proxy aggression, including sanctions war, ravaged the country,
killing millions of its people, causing appalling human suffering.
Hook: "(T)he last thing the (US) is looking for is (war) in the Middle East "
Fact: It's raging in multiple theaters, notably Syria and Yemen, once again in Iraq after
last Sunday's US aggression, more of the same virtually certain ahead.
State Department official David Schenker participated in Monday's anti-Iran propaganda
exercise with Hook.
Claiming the US wants regional de-escalation, not escalation, is polar opposite reality on
the ground in all its war theaters and in other countries where it conducts subversion against
their governments and people.
The best way the US could protect its citizens worldwide is by ending aggressive wars,
bringing home its troops, closing its empire of bases used as platforms for hostilities against
other nations, and declaring a new era of peace and cooperative relations with other
countries.
Based on its belligerent history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day,
this change of policy, if adopted, would be un-American.
Hook: "Iran has been threatening the region for the last 40 years" -- what's true about US
aggression, not how Tehran operates anywhere.
Hook: Iran "is facing its worst financial crisis and its worst political crisis in its
40-year history."
Fact: US war on the country by other means, economic terrorism, bears full responsibility
for its economic hardships, intended to harm its people, including Trump regime efforts to
block exports of food, drugs and medical equipment to Iran.
Fact: Hostile US actions toward Iran and countless other nations are flagrant international
law breaches -- the world community doing nothing to counter its hot wars and by other
means.
Fact: The Iranian "model" prioritizes peace and stability. Endless war on humanity is how
the US operates globally -- at home and abroad.
Fact: Iran isn't an "outlaw regime," the description applying to the US, its key NATO
allies, Israel, the Saudis, and their rogue partners in high crimes.
Hostile US actions are all about offense, unrelated to defense at a time when Washington's
only enemies are invented as a pretext for endless wars of aggression.
The US under both right wings of its war party poses an unparalleled threat to everyone
everywhere.
As long as its aggression goes unchallenged, the threat of humanity-destroying nuclear war
exists.
It could start anywhere -- in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, or against Russia by
accident or design.
On New Year's day 2020, I'd love to be optimistic about what lies ahead.
As long as Republican and Dem hardliners pursue dominance over other nations by brute force
and other hostile means, hugely dangerous tinderbox conditions could ignite an uncontrollable
firestorm anywhere.
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard
University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research
analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until
retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005.
In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on
the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen
live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project
Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the killing of General Suleimani an act of
"international terrorism" and warned it was "extremely dangerous & a foolish
escalation."
"The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Mr. Zarif
tweeted.
... ... ...
"From Iran's perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act," said
Robert Malley, the president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group. "And it is
hard to imagine that Iran will not retaliate in a highly aggressive manner."
"Whether President Trump intended it or not, it is, for all practical purposes, a
declaration of war," added Mr. Malley, who served as White House coordinator for the Middle
East, North Africa and the gulf region in the Obama administration.
Some United States officials and Trump administration advisers offered a less dire scenario,
arguing that the show of force might convince Iran that its acts of aggression against American
interests and allies have grown too dangerous, and that a president the Iranians may have come
to see as risk-averse is in fact willing to escalate.
One senior administration official said the president's senior advisers had come to worry
that Mr. Trump had sent too many signals -- including when he called off a planned
missile strike in late June -- that he did not want a war with Iran.
Tracking Mr. Suleimani's location at any given time had long been a priority for the
American and Israeli spy services and militaries. Current and former American commanders and
intelligence officials said that Thursday night's attack, specifically, drew upon a combination
of highly classified information from informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance
aircraft and other surveillance.
The strike killed five people, including the pro-Iranian chief of an umbrella group for
Iraqi militias, Iraqi television reported and militia officials confirmed. The militia chief,
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was a strongly pro-Iranian figure.
The public relations chief for the umbrella group, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq,
Mohammed Ridha Jabri, was also killed.
American officials said that multiple missiles hit the convoy in a strike carried out by the
Joint Special Operations Command.
American military officials said they were aware of a potentially violent response from Iran
and its proxies, and were taking steps they declined to specify to protect American personnel
in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.
Two other people were killed in the strike, according to a general at the Baghdad joint
command, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the
news media.
... ... ...
The United States and Iran have long been involved in a shadow war in battlegrounds across
the Middle East -- including in Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The tactics have generally involved
using proxies to carry out the fighting, providing a buffer from a direct confrontation between
Washington and Tehran that could draw America into yet other ground conflict with no
discernible endgame.
The potential for a regional conflagration was a basis of the Obama administration's push
for a 2015 agreement that froze Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Mr. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, saying that Mr. Obama's agreement had emboldened
Iran, giving it economic breathing room to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign
of violence around the region. Mr. Trump responded with a campaign of "maximum pressure" that
began with punishing new economic sanctions, which began a new era of brinkmanship and
uncertainly, with neither side knowing just how far the other was willing to escalate violence
and risk a wider war. In recent days, it has spilled into the military arena.
General Suleimani once described himself to a senior Iraqi intelligence official as the
"sole authority for Iranian actions in Iraq," the official later told American officials in
Baghdad.
In a speech denouncing Mr. Trump, General Suleimani was even less discreet -- and openly
mocking.
"We are near you, where you can't even imagine," he said. "We are ready. We are the man of
this arena."
Multiple
news sources are reporting the assassination, near Baghdad Airport, of Suliemani, the leader of
Irans Quds force. Some commentators are saying that this is "bigger than killing Bin Laden".
According to the Pentagon, the assassination was at the direct command of President Trump. I am
afraid this event, allegedly taken to forestall further attacks on US forces in Iraq, may have
unintended consequences.
To me, the logic of Trump in doing this is unfathomable. Did he intend to provoke Iran and
the Russians? What did he expect to achieve? Clearly the stress on the Iraqi Government is
going to be extreme. How has this assassination improved the security of U.S. forces in the
region? What does the Committee think?
I agree the stress on the Iraqi government will be intense. Will they force the US out?
Did Trump order this expecting that to happen? Or did he order this at the behest of Bibi,
MbS and the neocon contingent (Pompeo, Haspel, Esper, Kushner) he has surrounded himself
with, not really thinking through the implications.
The one scenario that I speculate that took place is the low-level "warfare" between US
forces and the various Iraqi/Iranian/Syrian militias got escalated. And Trump was being
"briefed" that it was all Iranian "influenced". That would have fit his generally anti-Iran
mindset and then he was presented with this "target of opportunity" and given seconds to
decide and he went with the flow to pull the trigger.
My sense is that while Iran will heat up the rhetoric, they won't retaliate militarily in
a direct and open manner. Instead they'll pile the pressure on the Iraqi government to expel
US forces.
The Mahdi Army is reportedly being reactivated, presumably they have some more combat
experience now thanks to the ISIS war. We have some 5,000 troops in the country and God knows
how many citizens there along with whatever we have in Syria. The Iranians are pissed and
want their revenge. The Iraqis are pissed too as is Hezbollah I'd imagine. I fear that this
is going to be bad.
Who is driving US policy in the region now, who is Trump listening to?
Once again the neocons have pulled off the seemingly impossible, imagine have the power
and cunning to have a country use their own servicemen as bait and cannon fodder to serve the
interests of a foreign country. Another nail in the American coffin, unfortunately.
I guess all Col. Lang's effort for the past 2 decades have been undermined. There is no way
that the assassination of a member of an Iranian equivalent of JCS will be tolerated. The
Iranian government will consider a lack of response to be interpreted as an invitation for
more adventurism by Trump admin. The whole talk about covert action is ignorant as the
Iranian foreign minister has already stated that there will be consequences.
The dice has been cast and at this point it really doesn't matter which faction within
Trump's entourage managed to start a conflict: the king-of-gamblers, Sheldon Adelson &
the rest of NeoConLibs, got their wish.
Not happy about it but nothing to do to reverse course.
I could it see it playing out in two general ways. Clearly, this could make things much
worse, across the entire Middle East. That's a given. On the other hand.....
It MIGHT be so that there are a lot of people in Iraq, Iran (yes, Iran) silently (for now,
if they know what is good for them in the short run) celebrating this hit. A lot of Iraqis
and Iranians have been killed by this guy's forces in the last few months. Alone. Who do we
think the people in Iraq and Iran have been protesting against? Al Quds. And there might even
be a few people in the Iranian govt who think now is the time to reduce, dramatically, the
influence of Al Quds. These facts should not be dismissed out of hand. But again, on the
other hand....
it may be deemed unholy and unpatriotic to celebrate taking out this SOB...as the lament
might go, 'he's an SOB but he;s our SOB!'.
I know this...I would be tempted to evacuate our embassy. Now. Like starting
yesterday.
We'll see. But I shed no tears for this guy. Nor do I celebrate it. Because either
way...it is grim. Now, if there was someone like the Col exploiting the vacuum and shock
waves certain to come in the wake of this...I would see opportunities. I repeat, a lot of
people in the Middle East did not like this guy or his organization...even if they don't like
the US too. But that kind of thing requires a mind that plays chess. And can kill, too. And I
don't see too many minds, and souls, like that in DC anymore.
Now that Trump so much complains and threats by Twitter about "civilians" in Idlib...we
remember the aerial bombing of the Iraq-Kuwzit highway by US...
This crime cannot be overstated as one of the most disgusting acts the US committed in the
region. A column of withdrawing soldiers and civilians which were even found to be in
compliance with UN resolution 660, were completely eviscerated by the US Air Force. A war
crime. https://twitter.com/mideastwitness/status/1211109428759613440
As Lozion said, USAF has attacked five positions of the PMU's (KH units), three in Irak and
two in Syria, it seems there are a scores of people have been killed and injured in those air
strikes, some of them seems to be senior commanders
"... For example, sources at the Pentagon admit that despite Trump's national strategy and his pledge to terminate "endless wars" in the greater Middle East, General Mike Milley, his new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is emphasizing Iran and Syria . Furthermore, instead of drawing down American forces in the region, the administration has sent 14,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf since May, including more than 3,000 to Saudi Arabia . In addition, President Trump has twice ordered American forces to be withdrawn from Syria, only for that order to be first ignored by the military and then largely offset by the hasty infusion of heavier forces to "guard" Syrian oil. Such backsliding in the Middle East is due to the administration's hazy strategic focus. ..."
"... In Syria, U.S. troops are ridiculously being used to guard a limited supply of Syrian oil from Russia forces and Iranian militias (not from ISIS, which would not require heavy American units). ..."
"... But the model for an American withdrawal from the region is not that of the faux pullback from Syria, which did little beyond endangering U.S. military personnel and pulling the rug out from under friends who had sacrificed greatly to help the United States battle ISIS. Friends and allies in the region must be given adequate warning of U.S. withdrawal and sold adequate weapons to defend themselves. A responsible reordering of our security priorities is desperately needed, given the huge national debt and a rising China, the latter of which may eventually pose a very real security problem. ..."
Rather than drawing down, Trump has sent some 14,000 service members overseas to a region we
can't seem to extricate from. ARABIAN GULF (Nov. 22, 2019) An F/A-18F Super Hornet attached to
the "Jolly Rogers" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103 launches from the flight deck of the
aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 3rd Class Jeremiah Bartelt/Released)
The Trump administration's national security strategy was supposed to refocus the U.S.
military's efforts on great power threats from China and Russia. However, like the prior Obama
administration's "pivot to Asia," the Trump policy has been shipwrecked on the ever-demanding
shoals of the Middle East.
For example, sources at the Pentagon admit that despite Trump's national strategy and
his pledge to terminate "endless wars" in the greater Middle East, General Mike Milley, his new
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
is emphasizing Iran and Syria . Furthermore, instead of drawing down American forces in the
region, the administration has sent
14,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf since May, including more than
3,000 to Saudi Arabia . In addition, President Trump has twice ordered American forces to
be withdrawn from Syria, only for that order to be first ignored by the military and then
largely offset by the hasty infusion of heavier forces to "guard" Syrian oil. Such backsliding
in the Middle East is due to the administration's hazy strategic focus.
The emphasis of Trump's national security strategy on the great powers is commendable.
However, that priority has not been implemented on the ground. With a $23 trillion national
debt, the United States can no longer afford to police the globe. It must choose to let
regional allies take up the slack in certain areas. Trump's lack of experience in foreign
policy, and the fact that our national security bureaucracies are still mired in Cold War
thinking 30 years after the Berlin Wall fell, have led to muddled implementation of the
strategy.
The president is naturally prone to wander away from his goals, with the "maximum pressure"
campaign against Iran as a prime example. It is Trump's own fault that America's footprint
hasn't yet been reduced in a region of lessening strategic importance. Iran is "acting up"
largely because the U.S. welshed on a perfectly good international agreement that limited its
ability to get a nuclear weapon. Instead of getting relief from international economic
sanctions in return for limiting its nuclear program, Iran got a Trump-coerced "maximum
pressure" campaign by international banks and businesses.
As a result, Iran has retaliated by capturing oil tankers and launching air attacks on Saudi
oil fields, which has in turn led to a U.S. infusion of more troops into the Persian Gulf
region. Domestic unrest in Iran, caused in part by increased U.S. economic pressure, may cause
the Iranians to lash out even more against American allies there. In Syria, U.S. troops are
ridiculously being used to guard a limited supply of Syrian oil from Russia forces and Iranian
militias (not from ISIS, which would not require heavy American units).
If the Persian Gulf was ever strategic for the United States (a dubious proposition), that
time has now passed. The fracking boom of hydrocarbon production in the United States has made
America once again the world's largest petroleum producer, even further lessening the Middle
East's importance. But what about the threat of terrorism -- that is, ISIS and al-Qaeda?
Islamist fundamentalism has been around for centuries, but these two groups in particular were
generated by the very American Middle Eastern interventionism that President Trump is supposed
be reducing. When the United States legitimately draws down from this theater of lessening
strategic value, those groups will be much less inclined to attack U.S. targets. However,
current American policy inertia continues to mire us in the Greater Middle East -- in
Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, and Mali -- at the same time that we're
jousting with Iran.
But the model for an American withdrawal from the region is not that of the faux pullback
from Syria, which did little beyond endangering U.S. military personnel and pulling the rug out
from under friends who had sacrificed greatly to help the United States battle ISIS. Friends
and allies in the region must be given adequate warning of U.S. withdrawal and sold adequate
weapons to defend themselves. A responsible reordering of our security priorities is
desperately needed, given the huge national debt and a rising China, the latter of which may
eventually pose a very real security problem.
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the
Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue
Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May
2019.
" pulling the rug out from under friends who had sacrificed greatly to help the United
States battle ISIS."
While I greatly appreciate the sacrifices the Kurds made battling ISIS, they did not do
it to help us, but to save themselves. ISIS is only a distant threat, if at all, to the US,
but a direct threat to the Kurds. They are in their neighborhood, not ours.
The President of the USofA has no power to turn this ship around. The seat of power is no
longer residing in the hands of civilian/political actors prime ministers or presidents though
they may be.
Candidate Trump indicated very early on that he intended to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, he soon succumbed to his advisors and generals advice of increasing troop
strength in 2017 as part of a surge strategy. This makes him no better or worse than his two
predecessors who succumbed to the same kind of advice.
However Trump has recently restarted negotiations with the Taliban and has renewed his
pledged to remove several thousand troops. "We're going down to 8,600 [from the 12,000 and
13,000 US troops now there] and then we make a determination from there as to what happens,"
Trump told Fox last August. "We're bringing it down." Of course the drawdown will be seen by
the neocons as a unilateral concession to the Taliban. That shouldn't phase Trump. I think he
plans to reannounce this withdrawal next month. DoD officials have said that the smaller US
military presence will be largely focused on counterterrorism operations against groups like
al Qaeda and IS, and that the military's ability to train and advise local Afghan forces will
be reduced considerably. Sounds like they're still looking for a reason to stay.
Trump can break the cycle. He holds no ideological conviction for staying in Afghanistan.
If he could get over his BDS (Bezos derangement syndrome), he could seize this Washington
Post series, or at least the SIGAR lessons learned reports, and trumpet them through his
twitter feed and helicopter talks. I believe he alone can generate a public cry for getting
the hell out of Afghanistan and carry through with that action no matter how much his
generals scream about it. But without a loud public outcry, especially from his base, Trump
has no incentive to break the cycle. So all you deplorables better start hootin' and
hollerin'. Hopefully enough SJWs will join you to pump up the volume.
Excellent, right up to the last sentence. SJWs are mere tools of people like George Soros
and have zero anti-war agenda nor do they care about America's manufacturing base ect.. In
fact, many are chomping at the bit to join, what was once termed in the SST comments, the
LGBTQ-C4ISR sect. I refer you to mayor Pete's exchange with Tulsi on the matter; he even
invoked our sacred honor as a reason to stay the course in Afghanistan.
TTG,
It's a shrinking cohort. For some of these types, their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is
actually causing them to side with the CIA and military. Enemy of my enemy.....and since
there's no draft, they have no skin in that game.
For the past 2-3 years many generals and politicians have been using the threat of ISKP as
the new bogeyman for staying in Afghanistan. This threat is not wholly unfounded, a
disproportionately large number of US airstrikes since 2015-2016 have been against ISKP in
Nangarhar(remember the MOAB?) rather than against the Taliban. If my memory serves me
correctly ISKP was responsible for every single US casualty in 2016-2017. In the past two
months however ISKP has been collapsing in its erstwhile stronghold of Nangarhar,
surrendering to the ANA rather than fall into the hands of the Taliba,à la Jowzjan
in summer 2018. I was very surprised by the number of foreign fighters and their families
to come out of there. We have the Taliban to thank for these two collapses.
IMO American "exceptionalism" doomed our effort in Afghanistan Very few of us are set up
mentally to accept the notion that other peoples are legitimately different from us and
that they don't want to be like us and do things our way. I attribute this deformation on
our part to the puritan heritage that you much admire. In your case your recent immigrant
past seems to have immunized you from this deformation. As SF men we rightly fear and dread
the attitudes of The Big Army, but, truth be told, it is we who are the outlier freaks in
the context of American culture with its steamroller approach to just about everything.
Ah yes, all that shining city on the hill stuff biting us in the ass once again. Like the
Puritans, we seem to believe we alone are His chosen people and are utterly shocked that
all others don't see this. In truth, Jesus probably sees our self righteous selves and our
pilgrim forefathers much as he saw the Pharisees... a bunch of douche nozzles.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
... ... ...
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.
No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will
scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues
of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue
to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.
1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total
casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified,
especially relative to population.
2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20
years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.
The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the
last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that
direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January
afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the
JFK treatment, who knows.
No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people
get what they want, good and hard.
I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the
Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy
of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to
until the Empire collapses.
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I
highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of
governments:
Controversy
On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently
criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in
Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European
distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in
1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining
relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.
In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was
first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until
1970.[18]
At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they
supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public,
always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or
that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public
about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what
is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate
stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for
there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to
govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself
surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with
them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving –
they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.
Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with
dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly
beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap?
You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to
JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.
Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They
can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge.
CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy
the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your
bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison
CIA SIS or GTFO.
Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of
course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene
may be the best final scene in the history of movies.
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium
seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the
yankee system of permanent war.
While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the
elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively
powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.
Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then
a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must
divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here
the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are
extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could
beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and
Pharaohs because they are global.
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was
the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the
demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit
today.
I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were
as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading
British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human,
and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.
Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate
attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again
with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their
profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals,
within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious
idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive
– ie it's not a "good" strategy)
The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony
over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan,
at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to
fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq:
Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic
location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya:
who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate
them regardless.
Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that
it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional
"war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the
1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right"
people)
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the
instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for
the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great,
big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is
no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing
and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently
the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this
curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of
furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as
earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and
all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen
will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man
will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that
the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of
grotesque self-deception'.
- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know
what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so
they are likely to stick with Washington .
Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is
the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar
world."
The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
According to some commenters at MoA the US neocons can be viewed as a flavor of political psychopaths: "Linear thinking is precisely
how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation.
It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking
because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates
think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone
straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced
and banished from the Washington tribe."
and " the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath
manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops
in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things
to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create
our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single
time. "
Notable quotes:
"... Provided the gross flaws of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying. ..."
"... Barack CIA 0bama. ..."
"... It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. ..."
"... Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit? ..."
"... Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives. ..."
"... you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals? ..."
"... it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion. ..."
"... the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him. ..."
"... Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP. ..."
"... There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade. ..."
"... My only gripe with his work is that he always describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc. ..."
"... Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe. ..."
"... the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told, break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed. ..."
"... Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but who cares, the cash keeps flowing. ..."
"... It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end - but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that. ..."
"... Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them! ..."
"... Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic damage. ..."
"... America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road to destruction. ..."
"... the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single time. ..."
"... The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the embodiment of that propaganda. ..."
"... The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story. ..."
"... Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is often quite noticeable in comments at SST. ..."
"... The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality. The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane. If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it. ..."
"linear"?, I would say amateurish and often stupid! It seems that the USA cannot see far enough as it's submitted to regime changes
every 5 years and decisions are finally left to powerful lobbies that have a better continuity.
Provided the gross flaws
of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive
universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying.
"Linear" and all that is the mushy feel-good stuff on top of your arrogance. Kleptocracy only NOW putting down its roots? Come
on. Let's get back to the 90's where it started. Vengeance for 9/11? Cover?
It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. All's well in the world with
them as long as the USSA is grinding away on some near helpless ME country. Drugs and other natural resources flow from and death
and destruction flow to the unsuspecting Muslim targets.
With America, you're our friend, (or at least we tolerate you) until you're not (or we don't), then God help you and your innocent
hoards.
The organized and well scripted chaos has been just one act in the larger play of destroying western civilization with throngs
of Muslims now flooding western Europe and to a lesser degree, USA. Of course, the Deep State had felt confident in allowing Latinos
to destroy America...Trump has put a large crimp in the pipeline--one of the reasons he is hated so badly by the destructive PTB.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
It is entirely possible that the underlying objective of, for instance, invading Iraq was to win a war and bring democracy.
Subsequent behaviour in Iraq (and Afghanistan) indicates that there might be (likely is) a hidden but central other objective.
I do not want to state that I know what that is because I am not "in the know". However, much that you attribute to failure from
linear thinking just as easily can be explained by the complexity of realizing a "hidden agenda".
Perhaps we can learn from history. Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a
game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power
and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having
sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit?
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted
by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as
partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make
them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives.
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency
and paid the price. The Soviet union collapsed and became vulnerable to western free-market gangsterism as well as suffering the
blowback of terrorism in Chechnya, where they decided to play it very differently. A bit more like how Assad senior dealt with
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's.
Russia knew that if ISIS and friends were allowed to destroy Syria like the Mujahadeen
had done in Afghanistan, then it would only be a matter of time before blowback would come again to Russia.
Russia's involvement is entirely rational and in their national interest. It should never have come as a surprise to the US,
and the US should shake off their cold war propaganda and be grateful that people are willing to put their lives on the line to
defeat Wahabist terrorism. Russia has played a focused line with integrity. Many Syrians love them for this, and many more in
the Middle East will likewise adopt a similar line.
In other words, the linear mindset blocks out all non-conforming realities in the present and those contingent elements
which might arise in the future
you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals?
i kinda skimmed this piece, but it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy
without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion.
Brenner: Washington never really had a plan in Syria.
Really? Firstly, the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on
a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the
strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him.
Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in
this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP.
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities
has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic
to Al Qaeda.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January [2007], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
that there is "a new strategic alignment in the Middle East," separating "reformers" and "extremists"; she pointed to the Sunni
states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were "on the other side of that divide."
Lastly, Brenner's complaint that Obama has been "scape-goated" as having created ISIS conveniently ignores Obama's allowing ISIS
to grow by down-playing the threat that it represented. Obama's called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" and senior intelligence analysts
dutifully distorted intelligence to down-play the threat (see below). This was one of many deceptions that Obama took part in
- if not orchestrated (others: "moderate rebels", Benghazi, the "Fiscal Cliff", bank bailouts).
After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States
Central Command's most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command's intelligence products to downplay the threat from
ISIS in Iraq" . . .
The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change
the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction . . .
There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's
break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade.
Russia has also benefited through the non-linear analysis of US diplomacy failures of the last two decades. Russia has created
a coalition backing up their military entry into the Middle East that allows achievement of tangible objectives at a sustainable
cost.
But b's article is about the US's dismal diplomacy that is exacerbating its rapid empire decline and it does very well to help
explain the rigid lack of thought that hastens the deterioration of US influence.
This article makes a lot of good points, but I didn't really grasp exactly what "linear" thinking is. OK. Venezuela very well
may be turning into a situation. What is the "linear" approach? What, instead, would be the "non-linear" approach? This article
cites many "linear" failures. It would be helpful also to learn of some non-linear successes. If not by the United States then
by somebody else.
Let me clarify my prior posting. This article seems to be asserting that the United States has attempted to pound the square peg
of its policy objectives into the round hole of the Middle East. I pretty much agree with that idea. But how is this "linear,"
as opposed to "bull-headed"? How does being "non-linear" help with the pounding? Would not adapting our policies to pound a round
peg instead be just as "linear" but more clever?
Thanks for posting these great observations by Michael Brenner, b.
The link to his bio on University of Pitsburg site is broken and the page is gone, but it still exists for now in Google's
cache from Aug. 1st
here . His bio can also be found under this ">https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-common-man-forgotten-by-elites/">this
article from The Globalist
Everything I've read of Dr. Brenner that I've stumbled across is brilliant. My only gripe with his work is that he always
describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never
goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy
infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc.
While he is quite accurate in describing the symptoms, one is left with the impression that they are the things to be
fixed. Linear thinking in a U.S. foreign policy of aggression? Absolutely, but it's pointless to 'fix' that without understanding
the cause.
Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population
for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money,
guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear
thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters
will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels
that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe.
Does anyone in Washington REALLY want to 'save' the Persians and 'rebuild' Iran as they imagine America did post WWII to German
and Japan? Or is the more overriding intent to punish and destroy a leadership that will not submit to the political and commercial
interests in the US? Of course the U.S. fails to deliver any benefits to the 'little people' after destroying their country and
government - they are incapable of understanding what the 'little people' want (same goes for domestic issues in the U.S.).
The U.S. government and leadership do not need lessons to modify their techniques or 'thinking' - they are incapable of doing
so. You can't 'talk a psychopath into having empathy' any more than you can talk them out of having smallpox. 'The law' and voting
were intentionally broken in the U.S. to make them all but useless to fix Washington, yet a zombified American public will continue
to use the religiously (or sit back and watch others use them religiously) with little result. Because we're a democracy and a
nation of laws - the government will fix anything broken with those tools.
In a certain sense, I'm glad Brennan does NOT go on about psychopathy in his articles. He would sound as tedious and nutty
as I do here and would never be allowed near Washington. I'll just be grateful for his thorough illustration of the symptoms for
now.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
First, this is more an analysis of military failure to "do the job" that Washington "strategic thinkers" tell them to do, and
the reasons why it's such a futile game. In our system of government, the military does tactics, not strategy. And the above article,
which should be passed out to every politician in this country, isn't really about "the objective".
For example, the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors
and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected
strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told,
break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency
gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever
dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed.
Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from
reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and
breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers
and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling
arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to
keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but
who cares, the cash keeps flowing.
And if you want to know why the Borg State got firmly behind Hillary Clinton, it's because they could see her supporting this
agenda wholeheartedly, especially after Libya. Here's a comment she wrote to Podesta on 2014-08-19, a long 'strategy piece' ending
with this note:
Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of
Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga
command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government
from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same
time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with
FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from
these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end
- but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation
between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead
on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that.
Regardless, it looks like end times for the American empire, very similar to how the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, and
the last days of the French and British empires in the 1950s. And good riddance, it's become a dead weight dragging down the standard
of living for most American citizens who aren't on that gravy train.
Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems
is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power
to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such
a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them!
Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there
are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such
policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic
damage.
America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down
on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on
committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that
raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road
to destruction.
There's a lot in both this piece and the comments. In a sense, I wonder if the core issue behind the Neocon/Imperial mindset isn't
a complete inability to see the other side's point of view. Psychopathy, short-termism (a common fault in businesspeople), divorce
from reality and hubris are likely a good part of it, as somebody, Paveway IV, Makutwa and nonsense factory put it, but the
Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to
fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the
troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way
of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly,
that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to
disaster every single time.
I would paraphrase critics of b that he (she?) has fallen into linearity trap: one point is the resources spent by USA on wars
of 21-st century (a lot), the second points are positive results (hardly any), and an intellectual charge proceeds from A to B.
However between A and B there can be diversity of problems. We can stock enough gasoline, run out of potable water. And indeed,
you can encounter pesky terrain. I recall a family vacation trip where we visited Natural Bridges National Monument and we proceeded
to Arizona on an extremely straight highway through pretty flat plateau. Then the pavement end, and the acrophobic designated
driver has to negotiate several 180* hairpins to get down on a cliff flanking Monument Valley. After second inspection, the map
had tiny letters "switchbacks" and a tiny fragment of the road not marked with the pavement. Still better than discovering "bridge
out" annotation on your map only when you gaze at the water flowing between two bridge heads. (If I recall, during late 20-th
century Balkan intervention, US military needed a lot of time to cross Danube river that unexpectedly had no functioning bridge
where they wanted to operate. Landscape changes during a war.)
That said, military usually has an appreciation for terrain. But there are also humans. On domestic side, the number of experts
on those distant societies is small, and qualified experts, minuscule. Because the qualified ones were disproportionally naysayers,
the mere whiff if expertise was treated as treason, and we had a purge of "Arabists". And it was of course worse in the lands
to charm and conquer. Effective rule requires local hands to follow our wishes, people who can be trusted. And, preferably, not
intensely hated by the locals they are supposed to administer. And like with gasoline, water, food, etc. on a vacation trip (who
forgot mosquito repellent!), the list of needed traits is surprisingly long. Like viewing collaboration with Israel supporting
infidels as a mortal sin that can be perpetrated to spare the family from starvation (you can recruit them, success!), but it
has to be atoned through backstabbing (local cadres are disappointing).
Great analysis! This is an excellent example for why I read MOA at least once a day and most of the comments! There's something
of a sad irony that Trump has made at least some kind of effort to thwart the neocons and their relentless rush toward armageddon,
seeing as how lacking in any real intellectual capcity they all seem and with Trump at the helm?
Mostly tptb, our political class, and the pundits for the masses, seem all to exhibit an astonishingly dull witted lack of
true concern or humanity for anybody anywhere, and in my years on earth so far, at least in America, they have inculcated in the
population very dubious ethical chioces, which you would think were tragic, and decisions, which you would believe were doomed,
from the wars being waged, to the lifestyles of the citizenry especially toward the top of the economic ladder, and I don't know
about others here but I for one have been confronting and dealing with these problems both in family and aquaintances for my entire
adult life! Like the battle at Kurushetra. At least they say they "have a plan," scoffingly.
Where is chipnik to weigh in on this with his poetic observations, or I think long ago it was "slthrop" who may have been bannned
for foul language as he or she raged on at the absurdities that keep heaping up exponentially? I do miss them!
Oh well, life is relatively short and we will all be gone at some point and our presense here will be one and all less than
an iota. An awareness of this one fact and its implications you would think would pierce the consciousness of every human being
well before drawing their final breath, but I guess every McCain fails to realize until too late that the jig is up?
Justin Glyn@20 "but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate
their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession
with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization
is the embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing
Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored.
The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated.
The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in
US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is
often quite noticeable in comments at SST.
That it why the US in its arrogance has failed in Syria, and Russia with its tiny force has been so successful.
The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality.
The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such
a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The
country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial
designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading
to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually
incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like
John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane.
If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime
change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to
decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
Have any of you read Bill Browder's book Red Notice?
It's a great read.
The grandson of the General Secretary of the United States Communist Party, whose great
auntie worked for the NKVD. His brother, Lev, is a great mathematician.
Browder worked with Robert Maxwell as an intern. That's the father of Ghislaine Maxwell,
Jeffrey Epstein's facilitator.
Browder went on to Salomen Brothers and ended up being one of the largest capitalists in
Eastern Europe.
For some reason the Russians believed that Browder was using front companies to aquire
stakes in Russian strategic assets, then remove billions without paying taxes, apparently
worth in excess of 4 billion. If Russian 'propaganda' is to be believed.
They must have wrong because Browder was able to achieve the Magnitsky Act in
response.
It seemed the Russians unfairly seized shares from Browder he acquired in Gazprom,
Surgutneftegaz, Unified Energy Systems, and Sidanco.
In July 2017, Browder testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Russia's alleged
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As everyone knows, this claim about Russian collusion by Trump is 100% true, and supports
the veracity of all his other claims. As the number one capitalist in Russia following the
fall of the Soviet Union.
And he was a hero too. Speaking out about how Jewish Oligarchs defenestrated Russia with
Yeltsin in the early 2000s and late 90s. He spoke out against his fellow Jews in what most
regard as conspiracy theories. Putin even praised him for assisting in liberation from the
Oligarchs.
What the Russians did was terrifying. They established a precedent where Jewish
international assets and capital could be seized for interference with affairs of state.
Of course what they apparently did was steal $230m off of Browder's fund shareholders.
Russia is of course very corrupt. And Browder's testimony against Trump for alleged Russia
collusion given what everyone knows speaks for his utmost veracity.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder. He did his best in
Poland with depressed assets, and he had a grand adventure. He's clearly amazingly good at
finance.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
Investor Bill Browder's allegations –Why Spiegel
is sticking to Magnitsky research
By Lucy Komisar
Dec 15, 2019
This is German news magazine Der Spiegel's response to a complaint by William Browder to its
editor
and to the
German Press Commission
about its exposé that proved he was a fraudster and his Magnitsky story a fabrication.
Key parts are marked in bold. The text and documents show the Spiegel story to be correct and Browder to be a conman.
Former major investor Bill Browder accuses SPIEGEL of misrepresenting the circumstances surrounding the
death of Russian Sergei Magnitsky. SPIEGEL rejects this – and lists the arguments and facts.
Bill Browder, founder of Hermitage Capital Management, photo Luke MacGregor / Bloomberg / Getty Images
Friday,
13.12.2019
8:21 p.m.
SPIEGEL reported on the background of the so-called Magnitsky sanctions on November 23. These punitive measures,
which were imposed on Russian officials by the United States, are mainly based on the account of the former major
investor Bill Browder and relate to the fate of his colleague Sergei Magnitsky.
Magnitsky died in a prison in Moscow in 2009 in circumstances that were not fully understood. Browder claims
Magnitsky was murdered for uncovering a tax scandal.
The SPIEGEL report describes the contradictions in
Browder's statements and states that he cannot provide sufficient evidence for his thesis.
Browder has now made a complaint against the text public, in the form of a letter to the editor-in-chief and a
complaint to the German Press Council. In his letter, he accuses SPIEGEL of distorting the facts.
We consider the complaint to be unfounded and therefore want to make it clear once again where our considerable
doubts about Brudder's story come from and why we consider it necessary to discuss it publicly. We have also made
the
text
freely available to all SPIEGEL readers (
you
can find the text here
). In this statement, we also link some of the sources to which we referred in our
research.
We have corrected an error in the English version of the SPIEGEL report. There we had the information that a rubber
truncheon was used, wrongly assigned to a report from 2009. In fact, it only appears in another report from 2011. The
German version was correct from the start.
NOTE FROM LK: That is Der Spiegel's only mistake. The claim that a rubber truncheon was used is a Browder
forgery. See this by reporter Michael Thau with whom I collaborated on exposing this very complex Browder
fakery
, which included inventing a form that doesn't exist and tracing a signature.
No doubt Magnitsky died a terrible death. As it was said in the SPIEGEL report, "horrible injustice" happened to
him. In our view, it is also appropriate to speak of a "mercilessly omitted assistance". The "use of a rubber stick"
is also
indisputable
. At no point in the SPIEGEL report is the issue of exonerating the Russian state from guilt for
Magnitsky's death. It is about showing
the inconsistencies, contradictions, and unsubstantiated claims in the
story that Browder has been coming and going to Western governments for years – and which have become the basis for
Western sanctions against Russian officials.
Browder's account of what happened to Sergei Magnitsky's death consists of several key elements:
How it all started:
According to Browder, tax inquiries were launched in Moscow in 2007, which he
described as clearly "criminal and politically motivated". The proceedings were fictitious, initiated only for the
purpose of confiscating important documents from some of his letterbox companies during a search. On June 4, 2007,
searches were conducted in Moscow. Numerous company documents were confiscated.
Magnitsky becomes a whistleblower:
Browder claims that he entrusted Magnitsky with the
investigation in 2007: three mailbox companies were hijacked after the search. According to Browder, Magnitsky
reported these events to the State Investigation Committee on June 5 and October 7, 2008, and explicitly accused two
police officers of the crime, Artyom Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov. According to Browder, this advertisement gives a
clear motive for the later arrest and murder of Magnitsky.
Arrest and death
: A trial against Magnitsky will open in autumn 2008. The allegation is tax
evasion. Magnitsky was arrested in November 2008. He died in Russian custody on November 16, 2009. Browder repeatedly
describes the death as a targeted murder plot.
Browder's presentation of the exact events varied
. The campaign videos that he published on
Youtube are exemplary.
Among other things, it states:
"?? After Sergei Magnitsky testified against the same criminal group for an even larger crime, the same
officers arrested, tortured and eventually killed Sergei to hide their crime."
"Instead of supporting Sergei Magnitsky and recognizing him as a hero, the government allowed interior
ministry officers, Kuznetsov, Karpov to arrest, torture and kill him."
At every stage of this presentation, numerous points do not stand up to scrutiny. A London court came to
the conclusion that Browder did not even begin to substantiate his allegations against Karpov (the
full
court order can be viewed here
)
Again and again it becomes clear that Browder's story contains errors and inconsistencies that distort the
overall picture of the events surrounding Magnitsky's death.
1. The tax investigation
The investigation started much earlier than Browder claims. While he has repeatedly stressed that he first
heard the name of the investigator Artyom Kuznetsov in 2007, the opposite is well documented. Kusnezov's name is
already on a letter from the tax investigator from June 2006, which went to Browder's companies.
That Browder's team was aware of the process also results from Magnitsky's statement of June 5, 2008.
There he describes that Kusnetzov requested company and bank documents at the end of May 2006. This mid-2006
investigation is also mentioned in complaints that Browder's people sent to the authorities in December 2007.
In addition, Magnitsky himself was questioned by the authorities in 2006 about tax inquiries.
Investigations into tax evasion by mailbox companies in the vicinity of Browder, including the company "Saturn
Investment", which Magnitsky was concerned with, also date from before 2004.
Several court rulings were brought against Browder's companies, then the proceedings were closed, but reopened in
2008.
SPIEGEL does not adopt the views of the Russian judiciary. A final clarification on whether the allegations of tax
evasion were valid would be up to an independent court, in a fair trial. It becomes clear, however, that
the
investigation did not suddenly start in 2007 as Browder claims, apparently recognizable without any basis. The
investigation has a well-documented history. The European Court of Human Rights concluded in its judgment on the case
that Magnitsky was not "arbitrarily" detained:
"
The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings
against Mr Magnitskyy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in
fraudulent acts."
(
Find
the verdict here
)
2. Magnitsky's role as a crucial whistleblower:
In Browder's account, Magnitsky's statement to investigators is the motive for his imprisonment and later targeted
murder: a corrupt clique team silenced the man who was dangerous to it. This is the core of the story spread by
Browder.
Browder describes Magnitsky as a decisive whistleblower. But this is a retrospective construction. Several
people from Browder's team have made the same or very similar allegations against the Russian authorities, some of
them earlier than Magnitsky:
Browder's lawyer Eduard Khairetdinov in complaints to the authorities in early December 2007 (PDF on
Browders
website
)
According to Browder, Magnitsky's first statement on the matter dates back to June 5, 2008.
He speaks about the search and confiscation of documents that, in his opinion, have been carefully used to hijack
the companies. He does not speak of the great tax fraud.
Magnitsky had "not yet discovered the scam",
writes Browder on his website.
A week earlier, however, on May 28, 2008, another Browder man named Grant Felgenhauer wrote in a
letter to the anti-corruption council of the Russian president about the suspicion that the attackers' real goal
was to refund hundreds of taxes Millions of dollars
(PDF
on
Browders website
– the corresponding passage is on top three, Felgenhauer speculates over $ 300 million).
The media had already reported the events. The business service
Bloomberg
,
the "Financial Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" reported in early April 2008.
The New York Times also made public the $ 230 million fraud on July 24, 2008 (link to
article
). Magnitsky,
in turn, did not speak to the authorities until his statement on October 7, 2008.
This chronological sequence is one reason why observers have doubts as to whether Magnitsky was actually
murdered so that the charges against the police officers are no longer raised. The allegations against the Russian
police were worldwide, regardless of Magnitsky's testimony.
Human rights activist Soya Svetova, who dealt with the case from the beginning, put it this way in conversation
with SPIEGEL last summer.
SPIEGEL
:
What about the version that was specifically targeted for being killed? Is
there evidence of this?
Svetova
:
No. There is no evidence of this. What was the point of killing him? No sense.
SPIEGEL
:
Because he knew about a $ 230 million fraud.
Svetova
:
Yes, but not only did he know about this fraud, the entire management and
colleagues also knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. He didn't reveal a secret.
SPIEGEL
: But your report mentions that pressure may have been put on him while in custody.
Svetova
: When he was in custody, people wanted statements from him against Bill Browder. But he
didn't do any. And probably he would never have made such a statement. But killing him would have been completely
pointless for them.
Svetova agreed to the interview and its recording in July 2019. In previous years, she had taken the position that
there was no evidence of a targeted murder. In 2014, for example, she wrote that she could not imagine that someone
had caused Magnitsky's death in a targeted manner ("Well, after five years have passed, I think this killing was not
intentional" –
original in
Russian
).
Shortly before the publication of the SPIEGEL report in November, she said that although that was her words, she
had meanwhile changed her mind and believed that targeted murder was possible. Svetova's change of heart is
transparently documented in the SPIEGEL.
3. The motive for Magnitsky's arrest
Browder claims that Magnitsky was arrested to force him to withdraw his statements against the police. He was
therefore tortured and murdered. Magnitsky's attorney at the time presented the situation differently right from the
start.
Dmitrij Kharitonov told SPIEGEL in autumn 2009 that his client was only a hostage, and that the
authorities actually wanted to put pressure on Bill Browder
(click here for the
article
).
Kharitonov has used the phrase "hostage" more often. In an interview with the Russian edition of Forbes magazine,
he reported that Magnitsky said about himself in court: "Your honor, I was actually taken hostage. My person hardly
interests anyone, everyone is interested in the person of the Hermitage chiefs."(
Russian
text
).
Human rights activist Soya Svetova also argued in a similar fashion in an interview with SPIEGEL this summer.
Svetova
: The figure Magnitsky combines the two greatest grievances in the Russian judiciary and
the Russian investigative system. If a lawsuit is opened against a company and it is not possible to arrest its boss,
then they take his assistant or his deputy or simply a colleague hostage. We see that in many cases: It was the same
with Mikhail Khodorkovsky's group Yukos (??). First, they take hostages. Magnitsky was also a hostage. He was of no
interest to anyone, they wanted Browder.
SPIEGEL
: Although the Russian authorities had just thrown Browder out of the country.
Svetova
: You wanted Magnitsky to tell you what terrible things Browder did. They wanted him to
discredit him, that he was a fraud and tax evader. Even though they stole his companies from him.
Svetova has represented this position several times, in 2014, for example, "
Radio
Liberty
".
In the 2009 text report co-authored by Svetova, evidence is given that investigators, together with the prison
authorities, put pressure on Magnitsky. The report also contains a corresponding quote from Magnitsky. His conditions
of detention had deteriorated in coordination with the investigator of the case against him, Oleg Siltschenko.
Their
goal is "that I accept false accusations, burden myself and others". There is no mention of Browder's claim that
Magnitsky should have revoked his statements.
The Russian original of the report is available on Browder's website (
PDF
). While
the Russian text does not contain the name of the investigator Kuznetsov, the English translation also published on
Browder's website expressly refers to him
(
PDF
).
[LK: Browder posted the version with his forged paragraph at the top of page 3 to his
website
and distributed it to media, including to the
Wall Street Journal
,
which has it on its website. The
translation
filed in U.S. federal court in the Prevezon case does not have that paragraph.]
4. The alleged evidence of a targeted murder plot
As alleged evidence of his thesis of targeted murder, Browder cites photos of hematomas on the dead man's
hands. Some may have been handcuffed, others may have been from Magnitsky's desperate punches on a door. A fatal
injury cannot be seen in the pictures
.
This does not preclude Magnitsky from being killed by external violence, but
there is no evidence of a
targeted murder by beating eight prison guards over an hour and 18 minutes, as Browder has variously claimed.
The contradicting information about the cause of death of the Russian authorities is disturbing, it is not
sufficient evidence for a targeted murder. The use of a rubber stick was also mentioned in the SPIEGEL text.
[LK:
Again, that is incorrect, there is no evidence of use of a truncheon. And consider, do American police who beat up
prisoners write that in reports?]
5. Magnitsky's alleged statements against police officers Karpov and Kusnezov
Browder accuses SPIEGEL of embezzling the true content of Sergei Magnitsky's statements. That in fact, Magnitsky
clearly named police officers Kuznetsov and Karpov as guilty in the statements before his arrest.
Nowhere in the two documents does Magnitsky raise a direct personal accusation against Karpov and
Kusnezov.
6. The role of the police officer Karpov in the Magnitsky case
Browder accuses SPIEGEL of spreading Pavel Karpov's claim that it has nothing to do with Magnitsky's death and tax
fraud. However, it is part of the journalistic due diligence to give people who have been charged with serious crimes
the opportunity to comment. This also applies to Karpov.
Magnitsky's lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov has emphasized several times (for example
here
in
conversation with the Russian radio station Echo Moscow) that Pavel Karpov played no role in the prosecution of his
client.
Kharitonov repeated this statement to SPIEGEL twice. Human rights activist Soja Svetova also said in
the summer of 2019 with a view to Karpov: "But there is no evidence that Karpov put pressure on him (Magnitsky)."
In addition,
the London High Court has also
found
that
Browder's allegations against Karpov are insufficiently substantiated.
7. The question of money
The SPIEGEL report does not go any further into the course of
the $230 million fraud, of which Browder
complains.
He refers to the findings of US investigators in the New York trial (
PDF
).
LK: The Justice Department acted as Browder's proxy lawyer. Its chief investigator
admitted
under oath that he got all his information from Browder and "the internet." The complaint filed by
U.S. attorney Preet Bharara is full of fabrications and should not be believed.
However, this case is less clear than Browder claims. The responsible US investigator had to admit in a
survey that his findings are based solely on statements and documents from Browder and his team.
The process
ended with a compromise. The Russian Kazyv clan – accused by Browder of profiting from tax fraud – has enforced the
express written note that it has nothing to do with the Magnitsky case.
Browder has been interviewed in the case. Under oath, he is unable to explain how he and his people
followed the cash flows.
Video recordings of the statement have landed on Youtube, the transcript is
available on Pacer.gov, an electronic database for documents from US proceedings.
Browder was able to take a comprehensive position on SPIEGEL on all of the points covered in the report, including
two talks each lasting two hours in summer.
SPIEGEL also sent questions to Browder on November 21 that go beyond the text previously
published. Browder didn't respond.
President Trump sometimes disrupts the pattern by vowing to end
America's "endless wars." But he has
extended and escalated them at every turn, offering nakedly punitive and exploitative
rationales. In September, on the cusp of a peace deal with the Taliban, he discarded an
agreement negotiated by his administration and
pummeled Afghanistan harder than ever (now he's back to wanting to talk). In Syria, his
promised military withdrawal has morphed into a grotesque redeployment to "secure"
the country's oil .
It is clearer than ever that the problem of American military intervention goes well beyond
the proclivities of the current president, or the previous one, or the next. The United States
has slowly slid away from any plausible claim of standing for peace in the world. The ideal of
peace was one that America long promoted, enshrining it in law and institutions, and the end of
the Cold War offered an unparalleled opportunity to advance the cause. But U.S. leaders from
both parties chose another path. War -- from drone strikes and Special Operations raids to
protracted occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has come to seem inevitable and eternal, in
practice and even in aspiration.
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
And this is where we must listen to the wisdom of Trump..
"As of a couple of months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. Seven
trillion dollars. What a mistake. But it is what is," Trump said Monday at a White House
meeting on with officials and lawmakers on infrastructure. "We're trying to build roads and
bridges and fix bridges that are falling down, and we have a hard time getting the money.
It's crazy."
"Think about it: As of a couple of months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East and the
Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in and not so
intelligently, I have to say, went in. I'm being nice.'' 2/13/18 Newsweek
''..when they went in and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in. I'm being
nice...''
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
Israel Shamir quoting Prof Michael Brenner of Pittsburgh U, who has noted:
"Europe's political class is psychologically unable to break free of its
dominant/subordinate relationship with America. This pattern endures despite the presence of
a mentally impaired man in the White House. The prognosis, therefore: 'Wither thou goest, we
go!" American leaders have exploited this compulsive deference ruthlessly. It allows
Washington to ensure European fealty at virtually no cost. Moreover, they can extract
compliance across a wide array of non-security issues – commercial, financial, IT
(warring against Huawei), political, diplomatic – by drawing on the same free-floating
loyalties.
"Europe has been obedient to the siren call of Uncle Sam in following it over the cliff
time after time – in Afghanistan, in Iraq (France excepted), on Russia, on Iran (by
acquiescing in severe sanctions), on Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in embracing Bolsonaro (invited
Keynoter at Davos), even on Venezuela and Bolivia. The ultimate test will come were
Washington to pick a fight with China that it, and the West, cannot win; will Europe then
take the final, fatal leap hand-in-hand?"
"... The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders and Russiagate. ..."
"... Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured. ..."
"... It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is. ..."
"... Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency). ..."
"... Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing. ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... "From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global domination. " ..."
"... "At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign
Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily determined to undermine Russia. A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had
to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow
celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on
Russia," Kevin says in his conversation with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion
eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against
Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium
News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan.
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive
state of affairs deserve the widest possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed.
Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further
we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer we come to its revival.
Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States.
It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first.
Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world
war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence
doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation
is.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been,
are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK
wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the
upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be
untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase Russophobia) sort – about Russian
hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour
Party's source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally
destroy the NHS and replace it with (of course) US "health" insurance company
profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity
among many Tory party supporters among the working and lower middle classes prevented them
from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the undermining, via
installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds
that would otherwise have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money
– a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally conceived and
constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov
(Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in
France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of
western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the
Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny
them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the
neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the
Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what
I've read the man is the most diplomatic and intelligent politician (not just political
leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world stage. None
of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries.
Unlike their western "world" political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they
agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated
and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked
well. We're trying to do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it
is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that doesn't. SIPIRI tags US military
spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the
energy department or our veteran's expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing
from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better than we can sustain
our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there
was NEVER a surrender, intended in any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships.
For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live and work in peace.
(By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear
as never before, a mad man throwing a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on
trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence
universally consulted), allowing the light in for the mass of the viewing and listening
public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as
the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK
obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who
is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a
nation which has been started by killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their
country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
Words are catalysts of connotations and connotations are functions of
expectations/framing..
Some conflate cause with purpose thereby limiting perception of cause and purpose.
Some understand that causation is interactive and in any lateral system the genesis of
causation is difficult to determine.
Some understand that evaluation is a function of purpose and that purpose can be evaluated
through such portals into wonderlands such as "What is the "United States of America" and how
is it facilitated?"
As thumb-nailed in the comments section of the article Capitalism's suicidal trajectory
– OlyaPola
December 6, 2019 at 07:46
"From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet
Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global
domination. "
From 1922 onwards various tactics have been attempted by the "West" to facilitate their
purpose, including attempts at "Orange revolution" in many areas which catalysed many lateral
trajectories including the process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian
Federation in the period from 1991 to 2005.
Consequently Mr. Suslov's observation re war of "The United States of America" can be
extended into present times and hence no "New cold war" exists.
""What is the "United States of America"
An initial step through the portal is that "The United States of America" is – a
regime of social relations to facilitate its purpose – the social relations not being
restricted to the "nation state" presently self designated "The United States of America" but
including classes in other "nation states".
Consequently alternative purposes and social relations pose an existential threat to "The
United States of America"; this being perceived of lesser significance in regard to "The
Soviet Union" and greater in regard to the Russian Federation.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country
on earth capable of obliterating the United States. Not even China has yet reached that
capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting,
and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the
scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The
Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met
with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment
for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin
seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last
two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems
to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
"... The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ? ..."
"... I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him ..."
"... So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others] ..."
"... So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays considering he is a one-man football team LOL ..."
"... As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast ..."
"... I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental. ..."
"... The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its embarrassment. ..."
"... Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
"... Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring 'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his servant Trump is pushing for one. ..."
"... I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker crumbs ..."
"... On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets. ..."
"... In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. ..."
"... The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler." Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist. ..."
"... It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda. It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby. ..."
"... When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the winning side. ..."
"... Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday recess. ..."
"... The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept, even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes. ..."
"... The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania. ..."
I had assumed that a real outsider couldn't have gotten to his position and that they
had a plan and would make a stand against the Empire's nomenclatura to try to turn the
ship of state to face the coming crisis head on.
Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face.–'Iron' Mike Tyson
Yes indeed E I think PCR has commented at length about how Trump just doesn't have anyone in
his corner and yes, it is kind of surprising
Now the funny thing is that I too thought for the longest time there must be some kind of
establishment faction behind the scenes that was backing the Trump agenda of getting real and
changing course from an obvious dead end path
But I'm not so sure about that anymore Trump may indeed be the guy that 'wasn't supposed to
win' as far as all the invisible heavyweights behind the curtain are concerned
The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus
his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human
on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ?
I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con
artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him
So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a
very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just
the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others]
But at this point it becomes abundantly clear that what Prof Cohen says here is what
everybody knows the ' permanent foreign policy establishment' which is quite out in the
open and neither 'deep' nor secret
For me that 'Anonymous' oped in the NYT was the milestone event that they could be that
brazen and open about basically ripping the wheel out of the president's hands I mean that's
brass they even called themselves the 'steady state' not even worried one bit about what that
says about this sham 'democracy'
It's like everyone knows right and is cool with it ?
Amazing
So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays
considering he is a one-man football team LOL
I point to the Syria almost-withdrawal which is in reality almost as good as a full
withdrawal since the SAA has regained almost its entire northern border and the remaining fleck
of a US footprint is a logistical and political impossibility
Let's face it for all the complainers [and yes, we've all got a lot of legit beefs] who the
fuck would have been able to do even this anyone else would have escalated a long time ago this
is the die-hard imperialist mentality of the neocons
I remember reading how some of these very people named here [including I think the harpy
Fiona Hill] were mouth-foaming freaking out at the SDF leadership and literally breaking
pencils in their face to try to stop them from accepting the lifesaver offered by the Russians
and SAA, with the Turks bearing down on them
I mean these people are just NUTS they are simply not rooted in reality at some point you
run into a brick wall going 500 miles an hour that is what awaits this crowd
As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves
look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was
standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
The latest zionist plan designed by Donald Trump and associate to zionist stooges Pompeo and
Brian Hook, intend to expand the war against Iran, has been failed. Trump ordered fomenting
riots using the poor citizen of these countries who are under the Jewish mafia economic
sanction in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon to create choas for the expansion of Jewish mafia and
Israel in the region that he is a member of. Trump expanded the WAR against these counties,
axis of resistance, using the US treasury runs by dual citizens pro Israel, and then
supporting a US/Israel/Saudi proxies in these counties funded by the Saudi Arabia – to
kill the citizens who are fed up with economic pressure force upon them by the criminal Tribe
and its stooge Trump, and to burn buildings to create chaos so Trump can use it against Iran.
This project was funded by the MBS Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Brian Hook, a U.S. Special Representative for Iran, has done everything to satisfy his
masters, the Jewish mafia and made a big HOOK to bring down Iran, but he couldn't and now
they are trying to go after Iran with FABRICATED news, spreading lies that Iran has killed up
to 1000 people.
Trump must answer his own crimes against humanity FIRST and then shut up and focus on US
interest NOT a Israel interests, because he will be viewed as a fifth column.
Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only
dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring
'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war
with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his
servant Trump is pushing for one.
they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it
moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang ,
with no understanding how they got there.
Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to
attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination.
LOL that is quote-worthy E
What can I add here you've pretty much nailed 'er down to the floor
I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case
of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and
ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker
crumbs
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever
see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he
promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing.
Yup the one-man football team and he's actually WINNING LOL
@Priss
Factor Over the years that we've been reading Dr. Cohen who has written about Russia, the
US, etc., we've become more and more convinced that Dr. Cohen, as a Jew, refuses to come out
in bold-faced print to tell the real truths; in this case The Ukraine.
If he were to do so, his Jewish brethren, as seen in The Deep State and in Ukraine would
simply destroy this man. In effect, he's a milquetoast figure of little importance.
"Chinese will soon become a majority in swaths of Russia; why not let them vote
to secede & join the Han motherland?"
-- You think by the zionists' rules, whether the rules are applied in Palestine or
Ukraine. Just give some efforts to learning the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine.
You might also need to refresh your knowledge of the history of the Middle East, for good
measure.
@NegroPantera
Leave the ancient civilization of Persia alone. Тhe US that had been messing with
democratic development in Iran in the 1950-s. The "chosen" behave like homicidal maniacs
towards Iran and cannot wait to see Americans dying for Eretz Israel project.
On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil
concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets.
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results thus far.
With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination
of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by
means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage
has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence."
In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to
overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any
way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to
launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh.
The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler."
Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist.
It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda.
It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on
orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby.
Here are some of the Atlantic Council stars: Eliot Higgins (Bellingcat) and Anne Applebaum
("historian").
Eliot Higgins is no journalist -- his forte has been to manage sales of ladies underwear
and to produce laughable and ignorant stuff about Ukraine and Syria. He has zero (0) training
in engineering, military, sciences. He is a perfect useful idiot and successful
war-profiteer.
The exposing of the Integrity Initiative has just scratched the surface of what appears
to be a much more sophisticated, insidious, and extremely online version of Operation
Mockingbird.
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC . and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
@anonymous
Because Israel is cautious not to cross a line beyond which Russia will have no choice but to
retaliate. Contrary to Americans, Russians don't have a short fuse and don't feel the need to
"pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the
world she means business". Since Russia got involved, Israel's actions have had exactly zero
effect on the course of events in Syria. Russia's goal is not to further ignite the Middle
East. Overreacting to Israel's gesticulations would be counterproductive.
Scum like Amanpour operating from within anti-imperialist countries are the reason why
those places ever needed laws curtailing the hallowed "freedom of the press." Words ARE
weapons, and the West knows this
Comments:
When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes
against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the
winning side.
Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of
Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal
Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday
recess.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything
that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is
but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be
happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
@Realist
True. If he appointed all these banksters and neocons by mistake, then there should have
been a few who weren't neocons or banksters. Making a lot of mistakes could be seen as
proof of stupidity. Making nothing but mistakes has to be by design
That pos said that those who commit "hate crimes" should get the death penalty without
trail.
Trump is right about the NATO members inadequate military spending; the US expects NATO
members to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence, the US however, does not require them
to purchase American made weapons, they can produce their own weapons, like French do, or buy
from each other like Germans -- they just have to make their military up and ready in case of
emergency, that's not an unreasonable expectation.
Among the NATO members however, Canada's case is unique; due to its closeness and joint
high command (NORAD) with the US -- and direct threat from Russian claim on the Canadian
Arctic, Canada needs and must increase its military spending significantly, Canada should
purchase modern Air force fleet, Advanced Surveillance equipment, Warships and Submarines for
the defence of the Arctic; F-35, F-22, AH-64 Apache, Nuclear powered Icebreaker and
Submarines etc. because all these equipment will we be partially built in Canada which bring
many high tech jobs and economic growth to the Canadian communities.
Trump is right, NATO and Canada should spend much more on their own defence, and buying
American advanced weapons is the best strategic choice for the Canadians forces, there
shouldn't be any doubt about that.
LOL to the first comment, Russia is *zero* threat to Canada ** . Russia is zero threat to the
US or Europe either. NATO has long outlived its purpose and needs to die.
** I suppose Russia could claim the north pole, and threaten to hold Santa hostage.
@Jmaie
Russian annexation of Crimea was a blatant assault on the International Law, yet it went off
without serious consequences to Russia -- it's not a secret that Russia has claims on
Canadian Arctic seabed, Russia has already planted its flag on the Arctic seabed; here is a
Link that you should want to see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic
I'd really be interested to understand how on earth the reintegration, by overwhelming
majority in a plebiscite acknowledged by all sides as free and unconstrained, of Crimea, a
Russian province for 300+ years, and a majority-Russian area for quite a long time, is "a
blatant assault on the International Law".
The "International Law" you quote must be a newcomer.
"I'd really be interested to understand how on earth "
It is very easy to understand. As Upton Sinclair observed "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Alistair repeats typical neocon viewpoint. Nothing original here. Neocons make their
living off threat inflation and this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact.
Fiona Hill is a shining recent example here -- this intellectual prostitute of MIC is a
member of Brookings Institution, Atlantic Council and other MIC lobbing organization that
promote Cold War 2 and neoliberal globalization.
The real question is "Why we should believe any of these chickenhawks?" They has been
proven liars so many times that they deserve the rotten tomatoes to be thrown at them on any
of their public appearances or, which is sadly impossible, at their Internet posts
But again money do not smell: unless neocons start facing very real and very personal
consequences, nothing will change. And like with any sect there is small number of
intellectually deficient people who still believe them.
3. Restrainers Want Realistic Foreign Policy Goal s. Instead of engaging in
costly and futile efforts to remake the world in our image, restrainers want U.S. foreign
policy to pursue more feasible objectives. The U.S. military must be strong enough to deter
attacks on the U.S. homeland, a task that is relatively easy to accomplish. When necessary,
the United States can also help other states uphold the balance of power and deter war in a
few key strategic areas outside the Western Hemisphere. America's economic clout will also
give Washington considerable influence over the institutions that manage trade, investment
and other beneficial forms of international cooperation, and it should use that influence
to ensure these institutions are working properly. But the United States has neither the
need, the capacity, nor the wisdom to conduct massive social engineering projects
("nation-building") in deeply divided and conflict prone societies, and it should cease
trying.
4. Restrainers Want Credible Foreign Commitments . The United States keeps taking
on new security obligations in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but it rarely
debates their wisdom or value. Americans are now formally committed to defending more
countries around the world than at any time in U.S. history, even though some of these
states are hard to defend, have little strategic importance for the United States, and
sometimes act in ways that damage U.S. interests. Washington is also engaged in less
visible military activities in dozens of other countries, some of them shrouded in secrecy.
Yet anytime U.S. leaders contemplate trimming these obligations, alarmists warn that the
slightest reduction in America's global presence will undermine U.S. credibility, embolden
rivals, and lead to catastrophe. Having allowed itself to become overextended, the United
States ends up fighting endless wars in places with no strategic value in order to convince
allies and adversaries that it will still fight in places of greater importance.
The sooner the EU & Europe generally either discard NATO or create its own defence
force in parallel with NATO, the better.
Europe MUST take control of its own destiny. It can not have an external nation, the US,
with different, if not opposing interests, dictating European policy & action.
The “Russia” situation is a perfect example of this divergence of interests.
Europe’s future clearly lies with greater Eurasian integration. Energy, primary
products, & mercantile trade all lie to the East, through Russia to China, Vietnam etc.
Notably, some countries such as Italy are already pulling away from official EU policy &
turning East.
Unfortunately, The US has bribed & threatened (many) EU leaders, leaders who
couldn’t even imagine a change to the status quo. Thankfully, though, it seems that
many average Europeans are sick to their back-teeth with the status quo & Europe’s
“evermore” subservience to US imperialism.
German tax-payers, like most other Europeans, see no need to spend billions of
hard-earned euros against a non-existent threat from the East.
They don’t even want to spend their money turning back the actual threats spilling
across their borders, but climate change is way up there on the agenda. De-industrialised
Europe chock-full of third-world denizens is going to be heaven on earth.
Donald Trump is driven by desire to sweeten the balance sheet of the US as well as a deluded
belief in whatever it is that he thinks Israel stands for. Israel seeks to manipulate the
medieval barbarism of Saudi Arabia to further its fantasy of regional hegemony. They should
"wise up."
The Saudi who killed three people at Pensacola is representative of the breed.
It is time for a basic re-appraisal of our relationships in the ME. pl
It seems the Gulf Arab sheikhs and the Al Saud family have been writing big checks to all
the movers & shakers in the West, including the political and governmental elites, think
tank sinecures, and of course many media personalities.
Tony Balir became a wealthy man with the money of the sheikhs. In an earlier thread you
had posted, we read about the Lebanese man who was a conduit for Gulf arab money going to
Hillary's campaign. Then there was the post-9/11 Republican administration of George Bush who
along with the so-called liberal media and most members of Congress from both parties put a
complete kibosh on investigating any Saudi role with respect to the 11 out of 15 terrorists
of Saudi nationality.
We can see how Trump is already covering for the Saudis by saying the King was apologetic
and will compensate all those killed and injured by the Saudi airman in Pensacola.
When American and western leaders are so easily purchased by the sheikhs, how can we have
a re-appraisal of our relationships in the ME? The few who are calling for such a
re-appraisal like Tulsi Gabbard are being smeared as Russian bots.
Col Lang, you taught at West Point.
So I am wondering if you have a view of Tim Bakken's new book:
The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the U.S. Military
I am not trying to argue here, I have only been at West Point as an athlete competing against
it.
Bakken book reviewed here:
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/12/west-point-professor-builds-a-case-against-the-u-s-army/
If the USA withdraws support from the Saudis then the Saudis might stop pricing their oil
only in dollars. What effect would this have on the value of the dollar? Then again how much
oil is left in Saudi Arabia? The ARAMCO shares sell off doesn't seem to be doing great
buisness, maybe the market understands the situation better.
Would you have been in a position at the time to know if there there were any Carter
Doctrine contrarians within the FP/IC/DoD establishment in the late 70's? Curious how
extensive the debate over deeper ME engagement was at the time, or if it was all just a
knee-jerk reaction to Revolutionary Iran.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
This list tells quite a story. It deserves a name such as "US History Written in Blood," but
more ironically and yet sufficient would be "An Inconvenient List." In any case, mass murder
for fun and profit has defined war throughout the entire history of humankind. That in the
modern era of late that the US has pioneered rentier capitalism as a means of extracting
profits from the industrial war machine is a matter of the natural evolution of state
sanctioned murder, far better at returning profits to investors than the mere slaughter of
stone age natives to steal their land.
OTOH, pacifism is indeed an aberration of political thought, not necessarily an unwarranted
aberration, yet one that should be subject to close inspection for its bona fides. My
Cherokee ancestors inform me to always be suspect of the good intentions of white men
claiming that they despise war.
Pacifism for me is individual. I was a cold warrior (pacifist not!) from '72 to '85 when I
went from supporting operating weapons to the "dark side" in weapons development, which a lot
was also nuclear related.
It's pretty obvious that Team Pelosi is more concerned with the affairs of the Empire,
even though she has no constitutional responsibility. than for the welfare of the American
people. The focus of the impeachment hearing on American policy in Ukraine is further
evidence.
Meanwhile, I have gotten no answer to my basic question: what are the top 5 pieces of
progressive legislation that Pelosi has passed--legislation that representations can brag
about to their constituents when running in 2020? It's pretty obvious that their have been
almost none.
Yet, I have been assured by others here at EV that our two party representative political
system is not merely engaging in so much Kabuki theatre in order to appear relevant. Who
knew?
Outside of the fact that this fellow is a liar of monumental proportion - for instance, this
post alone contains 3 different lies - it is fundamentally untrue that BOTH parties are just
engaged in theater. One actually passes legislation to help people and to reduce the
influence of $$$. The other - as former Republican party member Norm Orenstein has pointed
out - is anti-democracy, pro-despotism and a insurgent danger with a propaganda arm.
Huh... all team Pelosi/Schumer of is rant against the US constitution, demean the congress,
disdain the office of the President and make up things about the Donald.
See the continuing resolution good through 20 Dec because Pelosi who owns the House won't
face the responsibility to try and run the US government's purse.
More selective outrage from EMichael, the partisan hack.
Sure, it's horrendous that Trump pardoned a war criminal. But let's not forget that Obama
never even prosecuted torturers ... or closed Guantanamo as promised.
As usual for EMichael and his ilk, what's a horror when their party does something, it's
perfectly acceptable when his party does it.
All these years of being a almost pacifist and now I am seeing the error in my ways.
Sometimes - hopefully increasingly less often - good people must rise up and stomp out evil.
The pardons were not just condoning war crimes - it was telling the nazi ahs in the ranks
that they can do the same domestically. The right has an army within the US. Most of the
officers are okay - but that said, they are tolerating nazis, white supremacists, oathkeepers
and dominionists in their ranks. These exceptions are to let the other nazis know they can
mass murder if the want.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a "national
security threat" and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as
"terrorists" and refused to rule out military intervention.
One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it
seems.
Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be
expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.
Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and
even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country's left-leaning
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.
As Washington's rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately
beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning
inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region's few
remaining progressive governments.
These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of
Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing
dictatorships across the region.
Trump admin declares Nicaragua a 'national security
threat'
A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement
applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington's
target list: "These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in
Venezuela and Nicaragua ," Trump declared.
On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing
Nicaragua as an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring
a state of "national emergency" on the Central American country.
Trump's 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing
coup attempt in Nicaragua . The US government has funded and supported many of
the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and
cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.
The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In
December the US Congress approved
the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose
sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business
with Managua.
Trump's new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its
democratically elected government -- which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by
Washington -- as a supposedly violent and corrupt "regime."
This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which
designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.
Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic
sanctions. And Trump's renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on
Nicaragua.
The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media,
but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.
And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington's
hybrid warfare against Managua.
More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua
Voice of America (VOA), the US government's main foreign broadcasting service, noted that
the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.
Washington's ambassador to the Organization
of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, "The pressure against Nicaragua is
going to continue."
The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the
Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.
VOA stated clearly that "Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin
American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic
pressure on to bring about regime change."
This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related
sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.
And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a " more
comprehensive set of regulations ," strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.
Voice of America's report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more
US pressure against their country.
Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman
Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua's military in particular.
"The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that
the military will like act the military in Bolivia," Jagger said, referring to the military
officials who violently overthrew Bolivia's democratically elected president.
Many of these military leaders had been
trained at the US government's School of the Americas , a notorious base of subversion
dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with
reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to
carry out the putsch.
VOA added that "in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect
that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable
country."
VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director
of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is
supported by the US
government's
regime-change arm , the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US
economic war on his country, telling VOA, "There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua
and Bolivia] the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an
effect."
Courtney, who was described by VOA as an "expert on the electoral process," added, "If there
is a stick, there must also be a carrot." He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and
political pressure against Nicaragua's government.
These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an
act of war. Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif , has characterized US economic warfare "financial terrorism," explaining that
it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.
Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive
order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.
The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that
brings together numerous opposition groups , several of which are
also
funded by the US government's NED , welcomed the order.
Trump dubs drug cartels in
Mexico "terrorists," refuses to rule out drone strikes
While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela's governments is nothing new, Donald Trump
is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.
In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López
Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his
initials AMLO, is Mexico's first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a
progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and
even decriminalize drugs.
AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking
86 percent approval rating . And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to
combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.
"The neoliberal economic model has
been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," AMLO has declared. "The child
of neoliberalism is corruption."
When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador
announced the end to "the long night of neoliberalism."
AMLO's left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on
neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a
reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.
On November 27 -- a day after declaring Nicaragua a "national security threat" -- Trump
announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as "
terrorist organizations ."
Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them
with drones and things like that?" O'Reilly asked.
The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug
cartels in Mexico.
Trump's announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for
a meeting with the US State Department.
The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico
have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the
Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in
counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.
Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing
death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The
CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central
America.
These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed,
trained, and funded far-right Islamist
extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same
US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander
Omar al-Shishani
, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from
Washington when he was fighting against Russia.
The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunne r
and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to
cartels in Mexico.
Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration's designation
of cartels as terrorists, "They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their
national security ."
"Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in
Mexico?" Duarte asked.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to
demonize
AMLO , portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator
who is supposedly wrecking Mexico's economy.
Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The
Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate
Rebels:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OJyCHjxCEs
Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.
AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate
any discussion of coups.
"How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are," López Obrador tweeted on November
2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a
leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, "Now is different."
"Another coup d'état will now be allowed," he declared.
In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further
to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy
that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.
AMLO's government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela's leftist government,
throwing a wrench in Washington's efforts to impose right-wing activist
Juan Guaidó as coup leader.
AMLO has welcomed Ecuador's ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina's
left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the
presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4T0zbASfbA
In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico
for a historic visit.
Trump's Operation Condor 2.0
For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.
In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing
Venezuelans in Miami , Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an
hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.
"The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua
and in Cuba as well," he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in
heart of capitalism in the United States.
While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not
occupying its oil fields
), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.
During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered,
and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of
the US intelligence apparatus.
Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation
Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem
has only begun.
"... A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military, flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same fantasy world as voters. ..."
"... The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them. ..."
aul MacDonald and Joseph Parent
explain in detail that Trump hasn't reduced U.S. military commitments overseas:
But after nearly three years in office, Trump's promised retrenchment has yet to
materialize. The president hasn't meaningfully altered the U.S. global military footprint he
inherited from President Barack Obama. Nor has he shifted the costly burden of defending U.S.
allies. To the contrary, he loaded even greater military responsibilities on the United
States while either ramping up or maintaining U.S. involvement in the conflicts in
Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. On practically every other issue, Trump departed radically
from the path of his predecessor. But when it came to troop deployments and other overseas
defense commitments, he largely preserved the chessboard he inherited -- promises to the
contrary be damned.
MacDonald and Parent's article complements my earlier
post about U.S. "global commitments" very nicely. When we look at the specifics of Trump's
record, we see that he isn't ending U.S. military involvement anywhere. He isn't bringing
anyone home. On the contrary, he has been sending even more American troops to the Middle East
just this year alone. While he is being excoriated for withdrawals that never happen, he is
maintaining or steadily increasing the U.S. military presence in foreign countries. Many Trump
detractors and supporters are so invested in the narrative that Trump is presiding over
"withdrawal" that they are ignoring what the president has actually done. Trump's approach to
U.S. military involvement might be described as "loudly declaring withdrawal while maintaining
or increasing troop levels." Almost everyone pays attention only to his rhetoric about leaving
this or that country and treats it as if it is really happening. Meanwhile, the number of
military personnel deployed overseas never goes down.
The authors offer a possible explanation for why Trump has been able to get away with
this:
A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military
footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic
politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few
in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political
moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are
broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military,
flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from
the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and
influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same
fantasy world as voters.
Trump is further insulated from scrutiny and criticism because he is frequently described as
presiding over a "retreat" from the world. Most news reports and commentary pieces reinforce
this false impression that Trump seeks to get the U.S. out of foreign entanglements. There are
relatively few people pointing out the truth that MacDonald and Parent spell out in their
article. The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump
may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
The Case of Sergei Magnitsky
Questions
Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story suggest he may not
have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him to be.
Jahrgang 1981. Studium der Volkswirtschaftslehre in Bonn, Mannheim und St. Petersburg.
Absolvent der studienbegleitenden Journalistenausbildung des Institutes zur Förderung
publizistischen Nachwuchses (ifp). Sieben Jahre Moskau-Korrespondent von SPIEGEL ONLINE. Autor
des Buchs "Generation Putin - Das neue Russland verstehen". Seit September 2016 Mitglied der
Wirtschaftsredaktion von SPIEGEL ONLINE.
There's a tombstone in northeastern Moscow that bears the portrait of a man with a friendly yet somewhat uneasy smile. His
name is Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. He was born in April 1972 in Odessa, Ukraine, and died in November
2009 in Moscow. To this day, 10 years after the fact, the circumstances of his death in a Russian pretrial
detention facility remain unclear.
There are two versions of what happened to Magnitsky. The more well-known version has all the makings of
a conspiracy thriller. It's been repeated in thousands of articles, TV interviews and in parliamentary
hearings. In this version of the story, the man from the Moscow cemetery fought nobly against a corrupt
system and was murdered for it.
The other version is more complicated. In it, nobody is a hero.
The first version has had geopolitical implications. In 2012, the United States passed the Magnitsky Act,
which imposed sanctions against Russian officials who were believed to have played a role in his death. The
measure was signed into law by then-President Barack Obama after receiving a broad bipartisan majority. Back
then, if there was one thing that politicians on both sides of the aisle could agree on, it was their
opposition to a nefarious Russian state. In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enabled
the U.S. to impose sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide.
International Newsletter:
Sign up for our newsletter -- and get the very
best of SPIEGEL in English sent to your email inbox twice weekly.
all Newsletters
The facilitator behind these pieces of legislation is Bill Browder, Magnitsky's former boss in Moscow.
"When he was put to the ultimate test, he became the ultimate hero," Browder says of Magnitsky. Browder was
born in the U.S.. For years, his company, Hermitage Capital Management, was one of the largest foreign
investors in Russia. At the time, Browder was an advocate for Russian President Vladimir Putin in the West.
That is, until he was prohibited from entering Russia in 2005.
Public Enemy No. 1
Today, Browder refers to himself as "Putin's No. 1 Enemy." From his office in London's Finsbury district,
Browder coordinates a campaign he calls "Justice for Sergei Magnitsky." His goal is to get other countries
to impose sanctions against Russia for what happened to his former employee. So far, four other countries
have followed the U.S.' lead. For now, Browder is concentrating on Europe. He has spoken to politicians in
Norway, Sweden and France. He came to Berlin in May and spoke with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs in Germany's federal parliament, the Bundestag. He also had an appointment at the Chancellery.
Browder tells a gripping story of how Magnitsky, the whistleblower, is believed to have died. This
narrative is his ticket into the political sphere. It's why he's received by members of parliament,
diplomats and human rights activists alike, often with open arms. They support his push for more legislation
because they see it as setting an important precedent: Corrupt regimes all over the world that are violating
their citizens' rights must be held accountable and made to suffer consequences in the form of entry bans
and frozen accounts as laid out by the Global Magnitsky Act. The law makes it more difficult, if only
slightly, for autocrats to sneer at and ignore human rights.
But there's another version of the Magnitsky saga, one that is more contradictory than Browder's telling
and more difficult to summarize. The legal documents that underpin it fill dozens of binders, not only in
Moscow, but also in London and New York. After sifting through thousands of pages, one might begin to
wonder: Did the perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan
whose story the West was too eager to believe? The certainty surrounding the Magnitsky affair becomes
muddled in the documents, particularly the clear division between good and evil. The Russian authorities'
take is questionable, but so is everyone else's -- including Bill Browder's.
The cases raises uncomfortable questions for the West. In Europe and the U.S., critics of Russia often
argue from a position of moral superiority. But with the Magnitsky sanctions, it could be that the activist
Browder used a noble cause to manipulate Western governments.
One thing that stays the same no matter which version is told, is this: Magnitsky is dead and he was the
victim of a terrible injustice.
Magnitsky's Demise
On the evening of Nov. 16, 2009, Sergei Magnitsky died in a cell at Moscow's "Matrosskaya Tishina"
pretrial detention center. A prison doctor had diagnosed him with an inflammation of the pancreas four and a
half months prior, but shortly before Magnitsky was scheduled to undergo surgery, he was moved to another
prison -- one without the necessary medical equipment for such an invasive procedure. The reason given for
the move was that Magnitsky's cell needed to be renovated. Could that possibly be true? Even after the
whistleblower's death, work still hadn't commenced, according to an investigative commission. It began
looking into the case shortly after Magnitsky's death because the outrage in Moscow was so huge. The
commission counted among its members respected human rights activists and opponents of the Kremlin. They
analyzed notes and complaints filed while Magnitsky was in prison. They also interviewed the prison staffers
who, instead of helping Magnitsky, let him die.
The commission's 20-page report offered detailed insights into the sadistic, cold-hearted nature of
Russia's prison system. In the months before his death, Magnitsky was constantly moved from one cell to
another. His mother brought him medications that took 18 days to reach him. In September, he was forced to
wear his jacket at night because his cell window lacked a pane of glass. His cell toilet often backed up.
One time Magnitsky's abdominal pains became so acute that his neighbor began desperately kicking against the
door of his cell and calling for help. It took prison staff five hours to get Magnitsky to a doctor.
Mischa Japaridze/ AP/ Picture Alliance/ DPA
Sergei Magnitsky's grave at a cemetery in Moscow.
Magnitsky's condition worsened on his last day. He was transferred back to the prison where he was
originally supposed to be operated on months prior. There, the dying man began to panic. He was sedated and
restrained with handcuffs. The files analyzed by the commission note the "use of a rubber baton." Magnitsky
was left alone in his cell, unobserved, without a doctor. "An ill person in severe condition was effectively
left without medical attention for 1 hour and 18 minutes to die," the commission wrote in its report, a
chronology of merciless negligence. Yet it contains no evidence of a targeted murder.
According to Browder's more dramatic telling of the story, Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted
act of revenge by Russian authorities against an anti-corruption activist. Browder says he tapped "my lawyer
Magnitsky," to investigate a case in 2007. Over the course of his research, Magnitsky supposedly stumbled
onto a crime of unprecedented proportions -- the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, perpetrated by a
corrupt band of police officers and government officials.
The fraud involved a sum of $230 million (208 million euros) and a complex master plan, which, according
to Browder, was run by two Moscow police officers, Artyom Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov. The duo had initiated
a fraudulent tax investigation against Browder's Hermitage Capital Management and then seized three
letterbox firms that had originally been founded by Browder's people. With confiscated company deeds, the
firms were transferred to middlemen who fabricated massive losses and requested the reimbursement of $230
million in taxes that Browder's company had previously paid. Karpov, the policeman, denies any involvement
in the fraud or Magnitsky's death. "Browder is a liar," he says. Kuznetsov could not be reached for a
statement.
Browder's Story
According to Browder, Magnitsky was onto Kuznetsov and Karpov. He also says the same officials had
arranged for Magnitsky to be imprisoned and killed. Browder has told this version of events countless times.
He testified in front of the U.S. Congress that Magnitsky had been "murdered." Browder told Canadian
parliamentarians: "Eight riot guards with rubber batons would beat him for one hour and 18 minutes. He was
subsequently found dead on the floor of that cell."
When asked, Browder cites the investigative committee's report as evidence. He does the same on his
website, where he also says the same officials incriminated by Magnitsky "intentionally tortured and
ultimately murdered him." The report, however, makes no such assertion of an intentional killing. The names
of the two police officers, Kuznetsov and Karpov, don't even appear in the original Russian version of the
commission's report. Kuznetsov is only mentioned in an English translation on Browder's website.
By now, Browder's campaign has created its own frame of reference and its own supposed evidence. Browder
has often cited reports by the Council of Europe in recent years, though these are largely based on his own
accounts. For instance, one Council rapporteur, former German Justice Minister Sabine
Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, referred to Magnitsky as an "independent lawyer." But one look at documents
readily available online is enough to discover that Magnitsky was employed as a tax expert at an auditing
firm and had worked for Browder for years.
Browder claims to be fighting for justice. One of the reasons he's so successful may be because he's
adept at aligning his story with the devastating image that Russia has been projecting for years. And many
media outlets believe him. Browder has given countless TV interviews on the subject. In some of the shots,
viewers can see articles from prominent international media Browder has hung on his office walls -- the
Washington Post
, the
Financial Times
and Russia's
Novaya Gazeta
. The reports are all
framed and appear to lend credibility to Browder's story. DER SPIEGEL has also
written about Browder's campaign
and conducted interviews with him. The
New York Times
won the
Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Russia's legal system, including on the Magnitsky case. There are films
and plays too.
But the question remains: Just how solid are the facts upon which politicians and the media are basing
their judgements of this case? Various inconsistencies and contradictions are apparent in some documents
that Browder's own people have published online. These include two photographs of interrogation protocols
that allegedly prove how Sergei Magnitsky courageously reported the tax fraud of $230 million after
discovering it. In his book, Browder writes, "Sergei set up an appointment at the Investigative Committee
for 5 June 2008. (...) He sat in the chair, provided the evidence and gave his witness statement, explicitly
naming Kuznetsov and Karpov."
Contradictions
The protocol itself tells a different story. Magnitsky does indeed mention the names of the two police
officers nearly 30 times and describes their role during a search. But at no point does he make a concrete
accusation against them personally. In a second protocol of a statement made on Oct. 7, Kuznetsov and Karpov
are not mentioned at all. The first document also shows that Magnitsky did not make his statements entirely
of his own free will, but as a witness in an ongoing investigation. According to other documents, the trial
had been underway since February. This was confirmed to DER SPIEGEL by Magnitsky's lawyer at the time,
Dmitry Kharitonov, who said his client had been summoned to testify.
Browder has a well-documented talent for selling a set of facts so that it supports his own version of
events. In Moscow, this was part of his business model as an investor. According to its own calculations,
Hermitage Capital Management generated a 1,500 percent return on its investments within just a few years.
According to Russian investigators, a company in Browder's fund structure had wrongly paid only 5 percent in
taxes, when in fact 15 percent should have been due. A double taxation agreement with Cyprus should not have
been applied. Browder denies this.
One way or the other, Browder's business model was lucrative. Hermitage bought cheap shares in Russian
state-owned corporations, such as Gazprom or Sberbank, from the late 1990s onward. Then he took on the
conglomerates' leadership, denounced the widespread corruption and demanded reforms. If these came to
fruition, the value of Browder's shares rose. If they didn't, at least the publicity of his fund grew.
Browder had his eye on Gazprom especially. In 1998, the company was worth $3.5 billion. Within seven
years, that number had jumped to $160 billion. Hermitage held many shares through shell companies. Several
of them perfunctorily hired mentally disabled people who they described on paper as, "analysis division
experts." In fact, the people had no knowledge of this field, as several courts would later discover.
The companies took advantage of tax breaks that were intended for firms with workplace disability rates
of at least 50 percent -- and not as a tax-saving model for Western investment funds. Over the course of
their years-long investigations into Hermitage, Russian authorities stumbled upon a man who was helping
Browder come up with his tax-saving models: Sergei Magnitsky. Browder says the practice of skirting taxes
was common at the time.
When Browder talks about his fate in front of Western audiences, he makes it sound as if the
investigations into Hermitage were completely arbitrary. In his book and during interviews, Browder claims
that Kuznetsov, the investigator, appeared out of nowhere in 2007. This is significant because it appears to
underscore that the trial was "politically motivated, fabricated" and initiated for the sole purpose of
obtaining the necessary documentation for the long-planned $230-million fraud.
'A Measure of Vindication'
But the date Browder provided is incorrect. Kuznetsov's name appeared in letters to Browder's company in
June 2006. At the time, the police had demanded the firm surrender its bank data. There is also proof that
Browder's team knew about the letters. Indeed, they were in Browder's possession.
There is another interrogation protocol that Browder did not prominently publish online like the other
two. It is from October 2006, long before Magnitsky is said to have first exposed the big tax fraud that
Browder says caused him to fall out of the authorities' good graces.
According to the protocol, Magnitsky was questioned by investigators about one of the dubious letterbox
firms that gave employment contracts to people with disabilities. He claims that Browder's people asked him
to "to 'be' CEO for a period of reorganization." Other documents show that Magnitsky was involved in the
companies as early as 2002.
Some of the people accused by Browder have begun to fight back against the allegations. The Moscow
policeman Pavel Karpov, for one, who Browder claims worked with Kuznetsov to have Magnitsky arrested and
killed in retaliation for his testimony, filed a defamation lawsuit against Browder in London in 2012.
The presiding judge, Justice Simon, ruled the British courts had no jurisdiction over the matter. But in
his written verdict, he also wrote scathingly about Browder, calling him a "story-teller" who did "not come
close to pleading facts which, if proved, would justify the sting of the libel." Simon also wrote that his
assessment was to be explicitly understood as "a measure of vindication" of Karpov.
The only problem was the judge's words hardly made it into the public discourse at the time. The
Guardian
and other British media wrote about Karpov's humiliating defeat in the courts. Some of the
language they used can be found in press releases from Browder's campaign.
A second trial in New York concerned the frozen accounts of a wealthy Russian political clan, the Katsyv
family. The U.S. government imposed the sanctions because Browder had insisted that money from the
million-dollar fraud had wound up with the Katsyvs. In response, the Russians hired star New York-based
lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 48/2019 (November 23rd, 2019) of
DER SPIEGEL.
Browder, an otherwise talkative person, tried to avoid questioning. One video shows him running away when
someone tries to present him with a subpoena. In April 2015, he was required to appear in court. Under oath
and confronted with numerous documents, he answered meekly -- quite differently than during his public
appearances. Lawyer Mark Cymrot, a surly litigator with a moustache, spent six hours examining him. Cymrot
asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
DER SPIEGEL visited Browder in London and asked him to clarify some inconsistencies and contradictions in
his story. The result was a four hour-long interview and a grudging search for information, facts and
details. The meeting, which took place in a glass conference room in Browder's Finsbury office, provided
insights into his tactics: Together with his Russian partners Ivan Cherkasov and Vadim Kleiner, Browder laid
out dozens of documents that supposedly corroborated his version of events. Not all of them would stand up
to further scrutiny.
One of the documents was a previously unpublished email from Sergei Magnitsky. It supposedly confirmed
that he went to the authorities of his own volition as a whistleblower. Yet the document also makes clear
that Magnitsky was instructed to come forward by a higher-ranking lawyer working for Browder. This lawyer, a
Russian, admitted during the interview in London that Magnitsky had been sent as a stand-in for the CEO of a
letterbox company who investigators in Moscow had actually wanted to speak to.
To further back up their story, Browder and his team also presented an article by an American journalist
who had spoken to Magnitsky shortly before his arrest. The police officers Kuznetsov and Karpov had
Magnitsky arrested "immediately" after the publication of the article. But nothing in the article would
explain why Magnitsky was arrested. In it, he doesn't mention Karpov or Kuznetsov. The author of the
article, when contacted, said he couldn't imagine that it was his piece that triggered Magnitsky's
persecution.
Charles Dharapak/ AP/ Picture Alliance/ DPA
Former U.S. President Barack Obama signing the Magnitsky Act into law.
Browder's campaign has turned him into a global celebrity. His publisher advertises his book, "Red
Notice," as a
New York Times
bestseller. In interviews, he calls for Russia to be largely isolated.
He attacks politicians who disagree with him. He called John Kerry, the former U.S. secretary of state, a
"lapdog" and accused him of "appeasement." Browder has also called for Russia's banishment from the SWIFT
banking network, which would have devastating consequences for the Russian population. But is that really
necessary to ensure "Justice for Sergei Magnitsky?" Or has Browder's campaign turned into a personal
vendetta?
Too Good Not to Be True
Another strange thing about this case is that those involved sometimes change their stories completely
and begin saying the opposite of what they said before. Take Zoya Svetova, for instance: The Moscow-based
human rights activist co-wrote the investigative commission's report. She is a Kremlin opponent and writes
reports for MBKH News, the media project of the exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Svetova has
been intensively involved with the Magnitsky case and published regular articles about it. She is also
planning to write a book.
In July, Svetova said in an interview with DER SPIEGEL that even 10 years after Magnitsky's death, she
didn't think much of the theory that he was the victim of a murder plot. It was more likely that Magnitsky
got into an argument with the doctors and the staff because he wasn't being medically treated. "They were
beating him to pacify him," Svetova said, adding that the beatings in and of themselves did not indicate a
targeted murder. There was no evidence of this, she said. "What sense would it make to murder him?" So that
he wouldn't talk about the $230 million fraud anymore? By that point, news of the fraud was everywhere.
"Magnitsky did not reveal any secret," Svetova said in July.
The investigative commission report she helped co-write mentions that pressure had been placed on
Magnitsky while he was in prison. "They wanted testimonies against Browder. That was the motivation. He
should have accused Browder of not paying taxes. Magnitsky was a hostage. He himself was of no interest to
them. They wanted Browder," she said.
Svetova also said that while Magnitsky's fate was dreadful, it wasn't atypical. Failure to provide
assistance as well as abuse are common in Russian prisons, she said. She wrote an article on the subject in
2010. According to information from the Council of Europe, around 4,000 prisoners died in Russia in 2014. In
Germany, 150 died. "You have to know," Svetova said, "the Russian penitentiary system is very brutal."
Shortly before this article was published, however, Svetova suddenly changed her story. Now she had the
feeling "that he was moved deliberately to the 'Matrosskaya Tishina' prison to kill him." She said that
since July, she had gone back and re-examined all the old documents and that she now had a completely
different view of things.
In August, the European Court of Human Rights announced its ruling in the Magnitsky case: Russia must pay
the deceased's relatives 34,000 euros ($37,500) because the state should have protected the prisoner's life
and health. Nowhere in its verdict was there any mention of murder. The judges did, however, take apart the
claim that the whistleblower had been imprisoned out of revenge. Magnitsky's arrest was not without cause,
they wrote, nor were the authorities' actions malicious. The investigations into Magnitsky began in 2004,
long before he first approached the authorities, it says on page 39 of the court's written verdict. But that
didn't stop Browder from describing the ruling as a "resounding victory."
His campaign has created a kind of perpetual motion. Browder was recently received by diplomats in
Finland, which currently holds the presidency of the Council of the EU. They summoned him to discuss a
European version of the U.S.' Magnitsky sanctions. "This law will become a reality in the EU," Browder
tweeted in mid-October. His chances of success aren't bad: His story is simply too good not to be true.
"... "The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant, when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq." ..."
"... " 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating the word mission. 'I am sullied.' " ..."
In my opinion the most under-reported event of the Iraq war was the suicide of military Ethicist Colonel Ted Westhusing. It was
reported at the end of a Frank Rich column that appeared in the NY Times of 10-21-2007:
"The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence
was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant,
when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in
Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq."
"Colonel Westhusing's death was ruled a suicide, though some believe he was murdered by contractors fearing a whistle-blower,
according to T. Christian Miller, the Los Angeles Times reporter who documents the case in his book "Blood Money."
Either way, the angry four-page letter the officer left behind for General Petraeus and his other commander, Gen. Joseph Fil,
is as much an epitaph for America's engagement in Iraq as a suicide note."
" 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating
the word mission. 'I am sullied.' "
"The tiny pink candies at the bottom of the urinals are reserved for Field Grade and Above." --sign over the urinals in the "O"
Club at Tan Son Nhut Airbase, 1965.
Now that sentiment, is Officer-on-Officer. The same dynamic tension exists throughout all Branches and ranks.
My background includes a Combat Infantry Badge and a record of having made Spec Four , two times. If you don't know what that
means, stop reading here.
I feel that no one should be promoted E-5 or O-4, if they are to command men in battle, unless they have had that life experience
themselves. It becomes virgins instructing on sexual etiquette.
Within the ranks, there exists a disdain for officers, in general. Some officers overcome this by their actions, but the vast
majority cement that assessment the same way.
What makes the thing run is the few officers who are superior human beings, and the NCOs who are of that same tribe. And there
is a love there, from top to bottom and bottom to top, a brotherhood of warriors which the civilian population will forever try
to discern, parse and examine to their lasting frustration and ignorance.
It is the spirit of this nation [Liberty, e pluribus unum and In God We Trust ] that is the binding filament of it all. The
civilians responsible for the welfare of the armed services need to be more fully aware of that spirit and they need to bring
it into the air-conditioned offices they inhabit when they make decisions about men who know sacrifice.
"... Authored by Peter Hitchens via The Mail On Sunday blog, ..."
"... I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure. ..."
"... In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks ..."
"... But I've never seen one like this. It scared me. ..."
"... If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be started by a falsehood. ..."
I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot
identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure.
I had travelled a long distance by train to an address I had been given over an encrypted email.
I was nervous that the meeting might be some sort of trap.
Leaks from inside arms
verification organisations are very sensitive matters. Powerful people mind about them.
I wasn't sure whether to be afraid of being followed, or to be worried about who might be waiting behind
the anonymous door on a dark afternoon, far from home. I took all the amateurish precautions that I could
think of.
As it happened, it was not a trap. Now, on carefully selected neutral ground, I was to meet a person
who would confirm suspicions that had been growing in my mind over several years – that there is something
rotten in the way that chemical weapons inspections are being conducted and reported. And that the world
could be hurried into war on the basis of such inspections.
Inside the safe house, I was greeted by a serious, patient expert, a non-political scientist
whose priority had until now always been to do the hard, gritty work of verification
– travelling
to the scenes of alleged horrors, sifting and searching for hard evidence of what had really happened.
But this entirely honourable occupation had slowly turned sour.
The whiff of political interference had begun as a faint unpleasant smell in the air and grown
until it was an intolerable stench.
Formerly easy-going superiors had turned into tricky bureaucrats.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had become so important that it could
no longer be allowed to do its job properly.
Too many of the big powers that sponsor and finance it were breathing down its neck, wanting certain
results, whether the facts justified them or not.
My source calmly showed me various pieces of evidence that they were who they said they were,
and knew what they claimed to know, making it clear that they worked for the OPCW and knew its inner workings.
They then revealed a document to me.
This was the email of protest, sent to senior OPCW officials, saying that a report on the alleged Syrian
poison gas attack in Douma, in April 2018, had been savagely censored so as to alter its meaning.
In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks
:
leaks
over luxurious, expensive lunches with Cabinet Ministers, anonymous leaks that just turned up in envelopes,
leaks from union officials and employers, diplomats and academics.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read
stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
But I've never seen one like this. It scared me.
If it was true, then
something hugely dishonest and dangerous was going on, in a place where absolute integrity was vital.
If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be
started by a falsehood.
Last week I reported on the first episode in this story. Within days the OPCW had confirmed that the
email I leaked was authentic.
Nobody followed me home or threatened me. A few silly people on social media told blatant lies about
me, insinuating that I was somehow a Russian patsy or a defender of the disgusting Syrian regime that
I have been attacking in print for nearly 20 years. That was what I had expected.
But there is much more to come.
And, as it grows harder for everyone to ignore this
enormous, dangerous story,
I suspect I shall be looking over my shoulder rather more than usual.
" That anonymous author (a German intelligence analyst) documented the evilness of the overthrow of Evo Morales in Bolivia,
and the threat now clearly posed to the world by the US regime -- a spreading cancer of expansionist fascism, led from Washington.
But, even more than this, he indicated that unless the individuals who are responsible for the advancing fascism are executed,
there won't be any real hope for democracy anywhere in the world. Either this impunity will stop, or else the spread of the US
international dictatorship -- not only by CIA coups such as this, but by illegal international invasions such as of Iraq 2003,
Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, and Yemen 2015-, -- will continue and will engulf in misery ultimately the entire world . He makes
clear the complicity of US 'news'-media in the lies that 'justify' this coup (and 'justified' those invasions)." [My Emphasis]
IMO, that's a very broad interpretation of b's summation, but I cannot argue against the section I bolded--as some may have
noticed, my appellation for the USA has evolved to better reflect its nature: the Evil Outlaw US Empire. There are numerous reasons
that prompted me to do so, one I mentioned in my reply @14 to S--tact is no longer employed in diplomacy by the Evil Outlaw US
Empire, and that's a very bad sign, IMO. Zuesse continues on calling out the crimes of BigLie Media, echoing my accusation that
the writers and editors are all committing the crimes of Goebbels and ought to mimic his actions when his end was nigh.
Zueese ends his very authentic rant with the following prescription which was clearly needed prior to 911:
"Unfortunately, the only global solution would be a second American Revolution, but, this time, the news-media are far less
honest, and so almost no support exists amongst the US population for doing that. Consequently, the outlook for the future, worldwide,
is grim. If the warning (hidden by the media as it is), this time from Bolivia, is not heeded, how can this cancer ever be stopped
from engulfing the entire world?"
It's curious that an impending Civil War within the Evil Outlaw US Empire is posited but seldom a 2nd Revolution, although
the latter's been discussed at the bar by myself and others off and on over the past several years. I wrote the following in a
reply to psychohistorian on the previous open thread:
"I appears that the prerequisite to obtaining freedom and democracy is public ownership of the vast majority of financial levers.
Without public capture of that essential domain, only some form of penury is possible for the vast majority of commonfolk, leaving
only a select hierarchy free, democracy reserved only for their use. Pretty well sums up the current situation within the Evil
Outlaw US Empire I'd say."
The Civil Arm of the coup: one of the best-funded NGOs in Bolivia during 2017 and 2018 was the International Republican Institute
(IRI). http://bit.ly/37HYnit
The destabilization of Ukraine and Tunisia are the main achievements of this American organization.
"... More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers' meeting at Brussels on November 19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda -- escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarization of space and countering China's rise. ..."
"... Stoltenberg said , "Space is also essential to the alliance's deterrence and defence, including the ability to navigate, to gather intelligence, and to detect missile launches. Around 2,000 satellites orbit the Earth. And around half of them are owned by NATO countries." ..."
"... "Is our enemy Russia or China as I sometimes hear?" he added at a press conference with Stoltenberg. "Is it the job of the Atlantic alliance to name them as enemies? I don't think so. Our common enemy, it seems, is the terrorism which is striking all our countries." ..."
"... The congruence of interests between Berlin and Washington vis-a-vis Macron manifested itself in the NATO's endorsement of the US-led escalation against Russia and China, with France rather isolated. However, this congruence will be put to test very soon at the summit meeting of the Normandy format over Ukraine, which France is hosting on December 9, following the NATO's London summit. France is helping Russia to negotiate a deal with Ukraine. ..."
"... With NATO being set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won't let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on November 22, Putin said , "There are many uncertainty factors competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms The leading countries are actively developing their offensive weapons the so-called 'nuclear club' is receiving new members, as we all know. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space." ..."
"... The Russian response is also visible on the ground. The share of modern weapons and equipment in the Russian Army and Navy has reached an impressive level of 70 percent. The first pilot batch of next-generation T-14 Armata tanks will arrive for the Russian troops in late 2019 – early 2020. ..."
The December 3-4 summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in London resembles
a family reunion after the acrimony over the issue of military spending by America's European
allies.
The trend is up for defence spending across European Allies and Canada. Over $100 billion is
expected to be added to the member states' defence budgets by end-2020.
More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers' meeting at Brussels on November
19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the
alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda --
escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarization of space and countering
China's rise.
The NATO will follow Washington's lead to establish a space command by officially regarding
space as "a new
operational domain" .
According to NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, this decision "can allow NATO planners
to make a request for allies to provide capabilities and services, such as satellite
communications and data imagery."
Stoltenberg said , "Space is also essential to
the alliance's deterrence and defence, including the ability to navigate, to gather
intelligence, and to detect missile launches. Around 2,000 satellites orbit the Earth. And
around half of them are owned by NATO countries."
Equally, Washington has been urging the NATO to officially identify China's rise as a
long-term challenge. According to media reports, the Brussels meeting acceded to the US demand
and decided to officially begin military surveillance of China.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hit out at
China after the Brussels meeting:
"Finally, our alliance must address the current and potential long-term threat posed by
the Chinese Communist Party. Seventy years ago, the founding nations of NATO came together
for the cause of freedom and democracy. We cannot ignore the fundamental differences and
beliefs in the – between our countries and those of the Chinese Communist Party."
So far so good.
However, it remains to be seen if Washington's grand design to draw NATO into its
"Indo-Pacific strategy" (read containment of China) will gain traction. Clearly, the US intends
to have a say in the European allies' growing business and economic relations with China to
delimit Chinese influence in Europe. The US campaign to block 5G technology from China met with
rebuff from several European countries.
On the other hand, the European project has unravelled and the Franco-German axis that was
its anchor sheet has become shaky. The rift between Paris and Berlin works to Washington's
advantage but, paradoxically, also hobbles the western alliance system.
The French President Emmanuel Macron annoyed Germany by his recent calls for better
relations with Russia "to prevent the world from going up in a conflagration"; his brutally
frank remarks about NATO being "brain dead" and the US policy on Russia being "governmental,
political and historical hysteria"; and his repeated emphasis on a European military policy
independent of the US.
"NATO is an organization of collective defense. Against what, against who is it defending
itself? Who is our common enemy? This question deserves clarification," Macron said after
talks in Paris with Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general on Thursday, according to the
Times.
He argues that new talks with Russia are vital to European security and has pushed for
European involvement in a new deal to replace the defunct Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces
treaty between the U.S. and Russia.
"Is our enemy Russia or China as I sometimes hear?" he added at a press conference with
Stoltenberg. "Is it the job of the Atlantic alliance to name them as enemies? I don't think
so. Our common enemy, it seems, is the terrorism which is striking all our countries."
The congruence of interests between Berlin and Washington vis-a-vis Macron manifested itself
in the NATO's endorsement of the US-led escalation against Russia and China, with France rather
isolated. However, this congruence will be put to test very soon at the summit meeting of the
Normandy format over Ukraine, which France is hosting on December 9, following the NATO's
London summit. France is helping Russia to negotiate a deal with Ukraine.
The recent phone calls between
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky underscored
the growing interest in Moscow and Kiev at the leadership level to improve relations between
the two countries.
Moscow's breakthrough Avangard missile system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle will
be deployed on combat duty with the Strategic Missile Force in December 2019
In the final analysis, the Franco-German relations are of pivotal importance to not only
Europe's strategic future but the western alliance system as such. If anyone was in doubt, the
French veto in October
means sudden death for the proposal on European Union accession of the Balkan state of North
Macedonia, which NATO is inducting as its newest member. Berlin and Washington are livid, but a
veto is a veto.
With NATO being set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won't
let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on
November 22, Putin said , "There are many uncertainty
factors competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms The leading
countries are actively developing their offensive weapons the so-called 'nuclear club' is
receiving new members, as we all know. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO
infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer
space."
Putin stressed, "In these conditions, it is important to make adequate and accurate
forecasts, analyze the possible changes in the global situation, and to use the forecasts and
conclusions to develop our military potential."
Significantly, only four days before Putin made the above remarks, Chinese President Xi
Jinping told him at a meeting in Brasilia on the sidelines of the BRICS summit that "the
ongoing complex and profound changes in the current international situation with rising
instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia to establish closer strategic coordination to
jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations, oppose unilateralism,
bullying and interference in other countries' affairs, safeguard the respective sovereignty and
security, and create a fair and just international environment."
Putin responded by saying that "Russia and China have important consensus and common
interests in maintaining global strategic security and stability. Under the current situation,
the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication and firmly support each
other in safeguarding sovereignty, security, and development rights." ( Chinese MFA )
The Russian response is also visible on the ground. The share of modern weapons and
equipment in the Russian Army and Navy has reached an impressive level of 70 percent. The first
pilot batch of next-generation T-14
Armata tanks will arrive for the Russian troops in late 2019 – early 2020.
On November 26, Russian Defence Ministry stated that Moscow's breakthrough Avangard missile
system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle will be deployed on combat duty with the Strategic Missile Force
in December.
For the first time, the electronic warfare systems at Russia's military base in Tajikistan will be reinforced
with the latest Pole-21 jamming station that can counter cruise missiles, drones and guided air
bombs and precision weapon guidance systems. Moscow is guarding against the US and NATO
presence in Afghanistan.
Looks like exceptions in US political jargon means "no rivals"... Trump is still dreaming about "Full Spectrum Dominance"
Otherwise he would not populate his administration with rabid neocons, leftover from Bush II administration. As well as
people who were responsible for Obama color revolutions and wars. Instead of gratitude from neocons viper nest in the State
Department he got Ukrainegate as a Thanksgiving present.
Notable quotes:
"... If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished. ..."
"... A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival." ..."
"... In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of "full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos. ..."
"... While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world, respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction." ..."
"... Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia. ..."
"... This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect. ..."
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made prudent
remarks recently when he said the United States is no longer a uni-power and that it must
recognize the reality of China as an equal rival. The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining
Beijing's authority underlines Kissinger's warning.
If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a
catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.
Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China
to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding: "It is no longer
possible to think that one side can dominate the other."
A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be
exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a
rival."
In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts
that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This
consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US
viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of
"full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and
regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.
Kissinger's frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant
self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled
power which brooks no other.
The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for
international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: "I am confident the
leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two
sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties."
Aptly, Kissinger's caution about danger of conflict was reiterated separately by veteran
journalist John Pilger, who
warned in an exclusive interview for Strategic Culture Foundation this week that, presumed
"American exceptionalism is driving the world to war."
Henry Kissinger is indeed a controversial figure. Many US scholars regard him as one of the
most outstanding Secretaries of State during the post-Second World War period. He served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations during the 1970s and went on to write tomes about geopolitics
and international relations. Against that, his reputation was badly tarnished by the US war in
Vietnam and the horrendous civilian death toll from relentless aerial bombing across Indochina,
believed to have been countenanced by Kissinger.
Kissinger has also been accused of supporting the military coup in Chile in 1973 against
elected President Allende, and for backing the dirty war by Argentina's fascist generals during
the 1970s against workers and leftists.
... ... ...
At times, President Donald Trump appears to subscribe to realpolitik pragmatism. At other
times, he swings to the hyper-ideological mentality as expressed by his Vice President Mike
Pence, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. The
latter has labeled
China as the US's "greatest long-term threat".
This week President Trump signed into law "The Human Rights and Democracy Bill", which will
impose sanctions on China over alleged repression in its Hong Kong territory. Beijing has
reacted furiously to the legislation, condemning
it as a violation of its sovereignty.
This is exactly the kind of baleful move that Kissinger warned against in order to avoid a
further poisoning in bilateral relations already tense from the past 16 months of US-China
trade war.
One discerns the difference between Kissinger and more recent US politicians: the former has
copious historical knowledge and appreciation of other cultures. His shrewd, wily, maybe even
Machiavellian streak, informs Kissinger to acknowledge and respect other powers in a complex
world. That is contrasted with the puritanical banality and ignorance manifest in Trump's
administration and in the Congress.
Greeting Kissinger last Friday, November 22, during a visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping
thanked him for his historic contribution in normalizing US-China relations during 1970s.
"At present, Sino-US relations are at a critical juncture facing some difficulties and
challenges," said
Xi, calling on the two countries to deepen communication on strategic issues. It was an echo of
the realpolitik views Kissinger had enunciated the week before.
While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides
should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world,
respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in
cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction."
Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for
cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to
contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US
trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia.
This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and
ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop
of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
That's the same bottomfeeder and tax fraud Browder, who most probably killed Magnitsky. and who abruptly changed his
citizenship from the USA to British after his adventures in Russia. What a Chutzpah on the part of a person involved in
fleecing Russia after dissolution of the USSR, the activity supported by MI6 and CIA.
Businessman Bill Browder alleged Fusion GPS acted as an agent for Russian interests in 2016,
when the country was trying to combat the Magnitsky Act and its sanctions on Russian
officials.
If, for example, Russia decides to cur Kiev from Southern regions and split the country into two, the USA can do nothing to
help Ukraine. If the USA are engaged in the conflict in Ukraine they will need to fight the Russian army with conventional weapons
in their own backyard and on conditions that Russian impose including the risk of escalation into a nuclear war. They are
not prepared for such a development.
Notable quotes:
"... The United States engaged in unnecessary wars, and when these wars were easily won on the immediate battlefield, the unplanned for occupations lead to guerilla insurgencies that were not so easy for a conventional military to confront. The U.S. Army was not prepared for guerilla warfare in urban areas, nor for the brutal and immoral tactics that their new enemies were willing to engage in. ..."
"... After a decade of fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan and almost as long in Iraq, the U.S. leadership decided to destroy the sovereign nation of Libya, and foment a war in Syria immediately afterward. There is no doubt with the knowledge of historic events today, that the CIA and State Department facilitated a foreign invasion of Syria of Islamist radicals. ..."
In the Department of Defense authored summary of the National Defense Strategy of the United
States for 2018, Secretary James Mattis quite succinctly sets out the challenges and goals of
the U.S. military in the immediate future. Importantly, he acknowledges that the U.S. had
become far too focused on counter-insurgency over the past two decades, but he seems to miss
the causation of this mission in the first place. U.S. foreign policy, and its reliance on
military intervention to solve all perceived problems, regime change and imperialist
adventurism, resulted in the need to occupy nations, or destroy them. This leads to the growth
of insurgencies, and the strengthening of long simmering religious radicalism and anti-western
sentiment in the Middle East and Central Asia. The U.S. military willfully threw itself
headlong into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The United States engaged in unnecessary wars, and when these wars were easily won on the
immediate battlefield, the unplanned for occupations lead to guerilla insurgencies that were
not so easy for a conventional military to confront. The U.S. Army was not prepared for
guerilla warfare in urban areas, nor for the brutal and immoral tactics that their new enemies
were willing to engage in.
They obviously had not reflected upon the Soviet experience in
Afghanistan, nor the nature of their new enemies. As casualties mounted due to roadside IEDs,
snipers, and suicide bombers hidden amongst civilians, the U.S. military and the defense
industry were forced to find ways to protect soldiers and make vehicle less vulnerable to these
types of attacks. This resulted in vehicles of every description being armored and new IED
resistant vehicles being designed and fielded in large numbers. This in turn, equated to a vast
amount of time, effort and money. It also focused both the U.S. military services and the
defense industry away from fighting conventional wars against peer adversaries.
After a decade of fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan and almost as long in Iraq, the U.S.
leadership decided to destroy the sovereign nation of Libya, and foment a war in Syria
immediately afterward. There is no doubt with the knowledge of historic events today, that the
CIA and State Department facilitated a foreign invasion of Syria of Islamist radicals.
They
funded and armed these groups, provided clandestine training, and facilitated the logistical
movement of fighters and weapons into a sovereign nation to cause its disintegration. In these
two examples they decided not to occupy these countries, but to destroy all semblance of
ordered society and replace it with brutally violent chaos. The U.S. political and military
leadership seems to have learned that their past adventurism resulted in costly occupations,
yet instead of refraining from using the military option as a tool to alter geopolitical
realities they did not like, they merely opted to abandon the responsibility of occupation and
reconstruction all together.
... ... ...
Atrophy and Exhaustion
The U.S. military has been engaged in counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan for over
seventeen years. The disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, and
counterinsurgency operations in a host of nations including, but not limited to Yemen, Somalia,
Niger and Nigeria, have all taken a toll on the U.S. military. Not only has a great deal of
military hardware been destroyed, but a great deal of equipment has been worn out and
essentially must be retired from service. More importantly, the constant deployments have
undermined the personnel needs of all services, with thousands of men having been killed or
physically and psychologically maimed for life. Tens of thousands of the most skilled
commissioned and non-commissioned officers have left the services, many of them having served
multiple combat deployments.
The fact that 62% of U.S. Navy's F-18s are not mission capable is not an anomaly. In 2017,
approximately 72% of all U.S. Air Force aircraft were not flight worthy. Many of the airframes
are quite old, yet well within their engineered service life, but most are in need of
maintenance. Both the Navy and Air Force claim that there is not enough money in their
respective budgets to procure the needed spare parts to keep these aircraft flying. One would
wonder that if this is the case, why tens of billions of dollars are being poured into new
aircraft when existing fleets are being left in disrepair. The decisions being made in the
upper echelon of the DOD are quite perplexing for the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen
struggling to keep weapons and vehicles ready for action.
The U.S. Army finds itself looking for buyers of surplus MRAPs, vehicles of little utility
in a major conventional war with a peer adversary, while at the same time lacking spare parts
and munitions for armored vehicles and artillery systems. While the Army has made some progress
in procuring the first of the 49,099 JLTVs it wants, it is far behind in all other armored
vehicle procurement and development programs. BAE has delivered the first batch of 29 AMPVs to
the U.S. Army for extensive testing before the decision can be made to start low rate initial
production (LRIP). Once the LRIP begins, it is estimated that BAE will be able to produce
approximately 262 units annually, unless the company's main manufacturing facility in
Pennsylvania is expanded. The initial contract is worth $1.6 billion USD. The Army wants at
least 3,000 AMPVs of six different main variants to replace the thousands of M113 armored
vehicles still in service. The M113 first saw service in 1962 and a replacement for the
venerable vehicle has been required for decades.
Defense Secretary James Mattis made it crystal clear in his National Defense Strategy that
the U.S. must rebuild its conventional warfare capabilities. The U.S. Army's proposed 2019
budget lays bare the new priorities of a service facing a major transition in priorities.
Procurement of tracked combat vehicles, as well as artillery rounds, rockets and missiles
account for much of this latest budget request. Procurement is up by 18.4% over the previous
year, with procurement of weapons and tracked vehicles up 84% over the previous year. Although
upgrading of the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer to the M109A7 level is down by 56%
compared to 2018, procurement of 155mm artillery rounds is up a whopping 800%.
The percentage of total procurement directed toward weapons and tracked combat vehicles in
the 2019 proposed budget denotes that the U.S. Army recognizes its weakness in conventional
warfighting capability.
This chart clearly shows the desire on the part of the U.S. Army to upgrade and rearm
conventional capabilities. 155mm artillery rounds and Army Tactical Missile System upgrades to
the M207 MLRS are at the top of the list, followed by MBT upgrades and acquisition of new AMPV
vehicles.
As the U.S. Army attempts to rebuild its aged and depleted armored brigade combat teams and
conventional and rocket artillery, the U.S. Navy and Air Force are facing their own challenges.
The Navy finds itself in a position that is far from enviable, but was very easy to predict.
Having dumped $38 billion USD into two failed new classes of warships and a further $13 billion
into a new aircraft carrier that will likely not become operational until 2022, the service is
currently in the process of realigning its priorities. The service is struggling to procure the
new Virginia Class SSN and Columbia Class SSBNs that are required to ensure the
viability of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad well into the foreseeable future. These
defensive weapons programs, which are integral to U.S. national security, could have benefitted
greatly from the $50 billion wasted on the LCS, DDG-1000 and Gerald R. Ford programs.
Russia and China have spent the same time wasted by the U.S. Navy on updating and modernizing
their own submarine forces, chiefly their ballistic missile submarines.
Institutional
Corruption
If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political
establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize
weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the
country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This
is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system
that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the
few.
Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense
strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be
wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an
industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this
point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war,
so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.
There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an
Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military
industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the
expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive
standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state
of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort,
wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet.
Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many
nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.
President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the
nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from
generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was
$523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets
that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have
doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money
and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the
exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military
weaker.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of
the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the
sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that
the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate
are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military
industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has
become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go
against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the
benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the
lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote
continued prosecution of war.
Possible Reforms
It would be quite simple for the U.S. Department of Defense to rectify the current endemic
problems that have rendered it weaker and less prepared for a major conventional conflict with
a peer adversary. The greater challenge is transforming the relationship between the federal
and state governments back to the constitutionally intended one, and to dissolve the powers of
the now allied executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. This
would undermine the ability of the military industrial complex to coerce the nation into
working against the interests of the states and the citizenry. The military industrial complex
and the Deep State that serves it can only exist when power is greatly concentrated in a
federal system.
... ... ...
Conclusion
The United States stands at a crossroads in many respects, and the nation's military equally
so. All empires experience a period of over-expansion, military, economic and political
over-reach and imbalance. The United States has followed in the wake of the many imperialist
endeavors before it, with apparently little lessons having been learned. Imperialism is the
inevitable result of power devoid of wisdom and humility. A nation borne out of a revolution
against empire and absolutism has itself devolved into a much more dangerous and immoral avatar
of its former oppressor. This must change.
While Defense Secretary Mattis clearly acknowledged the need to transform the U.S. military
and realign it in a direction more focused on fighting and winning a conventional conflict with
the near peer adversaries he identified as Russia and China, one can only hope that he realizes
how the U.S. military that he served in for decades, got to the deplorable state that it now
finds itself in. The greatest enemy that the U.S. military has fought for the past seventy
years is undoubtedly the military industrial complex that it is an integral component of. The
Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and
Syria were never as much of a threat to the U.S. Armed Services as the corrupt military
industrial complex and the Deep State that serves as its guardian.
The United States military is in the weakest state of material strength and readiness since
the conclusion of the Cold War. The conventional ground forces of the Army have been
transformed into a force bent on occupation and counterinsurgency. Its heavy armored formations
are in a state of disrepair and material inferiority vis-a-vis its most capable theoretical
adversaries. The cornerstone of American power projection and intimidation, the aircraft
carrier strike groups, are a sad shadow of their former self. The carrier air wing, the entire
reason that an aircraft carrier exists in the first place, has devolved into a tool of
increasingly limited utility, with an ever diminishing reach.
The corrupt military industrial system that permeates every facet of American economic,
political and even cultural life has sucked the very lifeblood from the nation, eroded its
morality, bankrupt its economic future, and stolen a generation of its most patriotic and
selfless sons and daughters. While James Mattis acknowledges the challenges facing the national
security of the United States, he clearly misattributes the blame and misidentifies the very
real adversary. Russia and China are not existential threats to the continued welfare of the
American state. James Mattis need only look in the mirror to see the real threat, for he has
come to represent the cabal of special interests that enslaves the nation and constitution he
has pledged to serve, and holds the remainder of the world equally hostage.
There is very little chance that the reforms mentioned in this analysis will be adopted, or
that the United States will move in a direction that brings it back to its inception as a
constitutional republic. The interests of the military industrial complex in promoting
conflict, and maximizing financial profit will continue to steer the United States military,
and the nation as a whole, on an unsustainable and self-destructive path. There is little doubt
that if the Deep State pushes the nation to war against Russia or China, and likely an alliance
of the two, that the United States military has ever been in a weaker position. Such a conflict
would be of no benefit to any of the nations concerned, yet many potential flash points exist
that could lead to a conflict, including the South China Sea, Syria or Ukraine. As the United
States plays catch-up after decades of military adventurism, China and Russia have spent that
same time patiently and judiciously gathering their strength. The scenario of a one-sided
victory in favor of the United States is pure fantasy, existing only in the daydreams of the
emperor who wears no clothes.
Can we view MIC as analog of cancer cells what want to multiply no matter what?
Notable quotes:
"... So what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO's quick march to Russia's ancient frontiers, is alive and well. ..."
"... "Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy?" ..."
Kiev has several patrol boats in the Sea of Azov, with a few more to be
transferred there in coming months. Russia's navy could sink those boats and wipe out that base
in minutes.
Are we going to send our Navy across the Black Sea to protect Ukraine's naval rights inside
a sea that has been as historically Russian as the Chesapeake Bay is historically American?
Poland this week invited the U.S. to establish a major base on its soil, for which the Poles
will pay $2 billion, to be called "Fort Trump."
Trump seemed to like the idea, and the name.
Yet the Bush II decision to install a missile defense system in Poland brought a Kremlin
counter-move: the installation of nuclear-capable Iskander cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, the
former German territory on Poland's northern border annexed by Stalin at the end of World War
II.
In the Balkans, over Russian protests, the U.S. is moving to bring Macedonia into NATO. But
before Macedonia can join, half of its voters have to come out on September 30 to approve a
change in the nation's name to North Macedonia. This is to mollify Greece, which claims the
birthplace of Alexander the Great as it own. Where are we going with all this?
With U.S. warships making regular visits into the Eastern Baltic and Black Sea, the
possibility of a new base in Poland, and growing lethal aid to Ukraine to fight pro-Russian
rebels in the Donbass and the Russian navy on the Sea of Azov, are we not crowding the Russians
a bit?
And are we confident the Russians will always back down?
When Georgia, believing it could kick Russian peacekeepers out and re-annex its seceded
province of South Ossetia, attacked in August 2008, the Russian army came crashing in and ran
the Georgians out in 48 hours.
George W. Bush wisely decided not to issue an ultimatum or send troops. He ignored the hawks
in his own party who had helped goad him into the great debacle of his presidency: Iraq.
So what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia?
What might be called the McCain wing of the Republican Party has sought to bring Ukraine and
Georgia into NATO, which would make the containment of Russia America's policy in
perpetuity.
Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy? What are the
prospects of Russia yielding always to U.S. demands? And are we not today stretched awfully
thin?
Our share of the global economy is much shrunk from Reagan's time. Our deficit is
approaching $1 trillion. Our debt is surging toward 100 percent of GDP. Entitlements are
consuming our national wealth.
We are committed to containing the two other greatest powers, Russia and China. We are tied
down militarily in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, with the War Party beating the drums
for another larger war with Iran. And we are sanctioning adversaries and allies for not
following our leadership of the West and the world.
In looking at America's global commitments, greatly expanded since our Cold War victory, one
word comes to mind: unsustainable.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Largely right. However "entitlements" are not consuming wealth. Crony capitalism and unbridled
militarism are. 800 billion per year of military spending , which is unaccountable, unaudited
and is in addition to black budgets is a major problem. In addition, it seems crimes by the
financial sector -- even when local governments are defrauded, are never punished in a way that
acts as a deters future crimes. Nobody ever goes to jail.
Tackling these internal enemies instead of trying to cook up new enemies and crises would
definitely help.
Have to remind Pat that South Ossetia was a very rebellious part of an independent Georgia only
from 1918-1921. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#South_Ossetia_as_a_part_of_the_Soviet_Union
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 a CIS peacekeeping force had conrrol over South
Ossetia till August 2008.
April 2008 US promised Georgia NATO membership. Georgia was part of the willing coalition in
Iraq and US armed and trained Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008 shortly after
Rice's visit in July 2008.
So the whole claim of Georgia to South Ossetia is bogus anyway.
One problem with America's fealty to Israel is that it prioritizes countering Russia over
China. Left to her own devices, America would probably try to play one country off the other to
prevent them from joining forces. However, Russia is far more active than China in the Middle
East and is therefore of much greater concern to the Israelis. Once again, the "No Daylight"
policy with Israel costs the US dearly.
Odd statement. Entitlements can't consume anything. Though they do change what is consumed.
By transferring wealth from one person to another, different choices about consumption will be
made. Like more healthcare and less video games.
Military spending on the other hand is a pure consumption of wealth. Tanks and bombs add
zero value to our wealth and put vital raw materials to use to no good effect.
"Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy?"
Yes. Which is why Trump was voted in as President.
Perhaps the hesitancy of Putin's response to provocations is that it is almost impossible to
gauge what a counter response might be. If Trump is in control, he is known to be
unpredictable. It seems that Trump is not, however, in control. If true, then a counter
response is even more unpredictable and it is not even clear exactly who to deal with, let
alone what their motives might be.
We won the first Cold War but failed to completely disarm Russia and turn them into West
Germany. We became infuriated that they did not become remain completely submissive to us and
started a second Cold War using the full arsenal of the first Cold War tactics. This includes
information war demonization, isolation, to be followed by an arms race. We will either succeed
this time or die trying, either figuratively or literally. God's not on our side this time.
Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO's quick march to Russia's
ancient frontiers, is alive and well.
Because the Cold War was never about "Bolshevism" in the first place, d'uh! As for the
"Russian nationalism" – what's wrong with that? Why only the US can be nationalist
("unique", "indispensible", "shining beacon of Freedom", etc.), while other countries are
shamed for that? If you don't have the nationalism, then you have it's opposite –
"internationalism". What kind of internationalism can the US offer to other countries besides
becoming American patriots within their respective countries?
"Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a
policy?"
That presumes that the American people are in charge of anything when it comes to the
governance. Rather naive notion all things considered.
"... In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently. ..."
"... Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons. ..."
"... Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy. ..."
America Doesn't Need Another Weakling NATO Ally Macedonia is the latest nation invited into the alliance, but how does
that enhance America's (or Europe's) security?•
July 19,
2018
Utenriksdept /
cc At last week's NATO summit, President Donald
Trump denounced the allies for taking advantage of American taxpayers. Then he approved their latest subsidies. He even agreed to
invite a military weakling, Macedonia, to join NATO, which will add yet another nation to our military dole.
When George Washington warned Americans against forming a "passionate attachment" to other countries, he might have been thinking
of the Balkans. Indeed, a couple decades later, John Quincy Adams criticized proposals to aid Greece against the Ottoman Empire,
which then ruled that region. America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," he intoned.
On into the 20th century, the Balkans were in turmoil. Germany's "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, warned that "the great
European War would come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." That's exactly what happened in 1914.
It took decades and two world wars for the Balkans to stabilize. But after the Cold War ended, Yugoslavia, which had emerged from
Europe's previous convulsions, broke apart. One of the smaller pieces was Macedonia.
The battles among the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians were bloody and brutal. In contrast, Macedonia provided comic relief.
The small, mountainous, landlocked nation of two million people won its independence without a fight in 1991, though Athens launched
a verbal and economic war against Skopje over the latter's use of the name "Macedonia."
Perhaps modern Greeks feared that a resurrected Alexander the Great would lead the newly freed Macedonian hordes south and conquer
Greece. Skopje entered the United Nations under the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. In June, after
only 27 years, the two governments agreed that Macedonia/FYROM would be called the Republic of North Macedonia -- though the decision
must still be ratified by the Macedonian people in a referendum.
More serious was the insurgency launched by ethnic Albanians who made up about a quarter of the nation's population. The battle
two decades ago over Kosovo inflamed ethnic relations in Macedonia, eventually resulting in a short-lived insurgency. Although the
fighters disarmed, Skopje's politics remained nationalist and difficult. Last year, a more liberal administration took over, but
the country's democratic institutions remain fragile.
Indeed, Freedom House only rates the nation "partly free." The group cites voter intimidation, political patronage networks, violent
protests, and problems with judicial impartiality and due process. Particularly serious were the threats against press freedom, which
led to a rating of "not free" in that area. While NATO's newer members tend to score lower than "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld
once referred to the original allies, Macedonia is a step further down. Only Turkey, an incipient dictatorship, is worse: it almost
certainly would not be considered for membership today.
None of this mattered last week, however. After suffering Trump's many slings and arrows, alliance members approved an invitation
for Skopje to join NATO. Macedonian lawmaker Artan Grubi called it "our dream coming true. We have been in the waiting hall for too
long."
That's because Macedonia had hoped for an invite back in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, but was blocked by Athens over the name
dispute, and has wanted to join ever since. Macedonia's Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said, "With NATO membership, Macedonia
becomes part of the most powerful alliance. That enhances both our security and economic prosperity." Money and status are expected
to follow.
But how would this benefit the United States and other NATO members? James Ker-Lindsay at the London School of Economics made
the astonishing claim that "opening the way for the country to join NATO would be a big win for the organization at a crucial time
when concerns over Russian influence in the Western Balkans are growing in many capitals." As Skopje goes, so goes Europe? Not likely.
If Washington and Moscow are engaged in a new "great game," it is not a battle for Macedonia.
In fact, Macedonia is a security irrelevancy, destined to require American aid to create the pretense that its military is fit
for the transatlantic alliance. Skopje spent just $112 million on its armed forces last year, ahead of only one NATO member, Montenegro.
That was barely 1 percent of its GDP, putting Macedonia near the back of the NATO pack.
With an 8,000-man military, one is tempted to ask, why bother? But then one could similarly pose that query to several other NATO
members. Skopje's military is roughly the same size as Albania's, slightly bigger than Slovenia's, and about four times the size
of Montenegro's. None will be of much use in a conflict with the only conceivable threat, Russia.
So why bring Macedonia into NATO?
Some American policymakers see alliance membership as a means to socialize nations like Macedonia, helping them move towards democracy.
However, the European Union, which sets standards governing a range of domestic policies, has always been better suited to this task,
and EU membership imposes no security obligations on Washington. With the name controversy tentatively resolved, Skopje could begin
the EU accession process -- if the Europeans are willing. That is properly their -- not Washington's -- responsibility.
In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw
Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it
violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic
toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently.
The Balkans are peripheral even to Europe and matter little to America's defense. The states and peoples there tend to be more
disruptive and less democratic than their neighbors, reflecting the region's unstable history. (North) Macedonia's 8,000 troops aren't
likely to be reborn as the Spartan 300 and hold off invading Russians. So why should America threaten war on Skopje's behalf?
Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes
become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons.
Expansion also complicates alliance decision-making. No doubt, Washington wishes its European allies would do what they're told:
spend more, shut up, and deploy where America wants them. That doesn't work out very well in practice, alas, as Trump has discovered
in Europe (though nations with smaller militaries are more likely to acquiesce than nations with bigger ones). An organization of
30 members, which NATO will become if Macedonia is added, is a more complex and less agile creature than one of 16, the number that
existed before NATO raced east.
Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining
to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative
perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy.
Finally, expanding the alliance is nonsensical in light of the president's criticisms of the Europeans. Hiking U.S. military spending,
increasing manpower and materiel deployments in Europe, and adding new members all contradict his demand that the allies do more
and signal that the president is not serious in his demands. That leaves the Europeans with little incentive to act, especially since
most of their peoples perceive few if any security threats.
Yet again President Trump has been exposed as a thoughtless blowhard. His rabid supporters have likely enjoyed his confrontational
rhetoric, but he has done nothing to turn it into policy. The Europeans need only wait for his attacks to ebb and then they can proceed
much the same as before. The status quo will continue to reign, impervious to change.
Montenegro always resembled the Duchy of Grand Fenwick from the delightful novel The Mouse that Roared . Macedonia is
the Duchy of North Grand Fenwick, a slightly larger neighboring state with similar features but additional problems. Neither is remotely
relevant to American security. America doesn't need yet another security black hole as an alliance partner.
But, according to the CNN (the original source), Germany will still not disbuse anywhere
near the 2-3% minimum required for each member.
At this point, many people here must've been asking: why doesn't the other NATO members
rise their contributions, since, as capitalist nations, it could provide them a consumerist
black hole (infinite demand) a la Keynes? After all, what works for the USA should work for
them, right?
"The Franco-German political-economic duopoly that has held Europe together during the
postwar period is fracturing, with Europe being pulled in different directions by the
gravitational forces of these two incompatible economic models that are likely incapable of
sustaining a singular economic union, let alone underwriting a geriatric military alliance
that has lost its purpose and meaning. NATO is on life-support, and Europe is being asked to
foot the bill to keep breathing life into an increasingly moribund alliance whose brain death
is readily recognized, but rarely acknowledged."
Interesting heads-up in there; NATO Exercise Defender 2020 will be the third-largest
military exercise in Europe since the Cold War; 37,000 troops from 15 nations, including
20,000 of the American troops some American politicians maintain are welcomed throughout the
world. However, the article points out the military muscle which will be on show
" pales in comparison with the scope of the U.S. commitment then when compared to now.
In 1983, more than 250,000 U.S. troops were stationed in Germany, compared to approximately
35,000 now. The 20,000 troops the U.S. is flying in next year represents the maximum number
the U.S. can deploy on short notice; the 19,000 flown in in 1983 were part of a larger force
of over 350,000 earmarked for deployment should the need have arisen."
WARNING! ABOVE-LINKED ARTICLE BY KREMLIN-CONTROLLED RT!
Having sponsored the 2011 'humanitarian' regime-change in Libya and reducing the North
African country to chaos and civil war, the US is now protesting the alleged presence of
Russian troops there as "incredibly destabilizing."
That was the claim on Tuesday by David Schenker, the assistant secretary for near
eastern affairs at the State Department. He told reporters that Russian regulars were being
sent to Libya "in significant numbers" to support the Libya National Army (LNA) and said that
"raises the specter of large-scale casualties among the civilian population."
Schenker's concern for the lives and well-being of Libyan civilians is especially
touching, given that the US was one of the driving forces behind the regime-change operation
in 2011 targeting the government of Col. Moammar Gaddafi. Few can forget then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton cackling ghoulishly when she was informed of Gaddafi's brutal murder at
the hands of US-backed 'moderate' rebels.
It has been estimated that some 25,000 Libyans were killed just between March and
October 2011, and who knows how many more since, as the country went from one of the most
prosperous in Africa to a chaotic wasteland dominated by warlords. Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS) was drawn to the chaos, and reporters even found open-air slave markets at one
point.
Even when the "humanitarian" fallout reached out to claim the lives of four Americans
at the consulate in Benghazi in 2012, Washington shrugged. Their murders were blamed on a
YouTube video and Clinton famously sneered at Congress, "what difference, at this point, does
it make?"
Now, however, as General Khalifa Haftar – who lived in the US for 20-plus years,
mind you – and his LNA seem poised to reunite the country and brush aside the US-backed
"national unity government" that clings on to the capital and not much more, Washington is
suddenly concerned for Libyan lives? Please!
"From all the SMR projects, Rosatom is arguably out in front. Unlike the other projects,
the Russian flagship RITM-200 small modular reactor design of 50 MW capacity is already tried
and tested is it is the reactor used to power Russia's Arctic icebreakers that go into
operation next year. So far six RITM-200 reactors are being installed on the icebreakers
Arktika, Sibir and Ural. Two more nuclear powered icebreakers have already been
commissioned.
The two smaller KLT-40 reactors (35 MW) also went into the Akademik Lomonosov floating
nuclear power station that was towed to its permanent Chukotka location in August to start
commercial operations next year. The logic of a floating version of an SMR is the same as the
land-based version: to serve remote locations and allow for their industrialisation. Most of
Russia's northern coast is home to a cornucopia of natural resources but are at the same time
thousands of kilometres away from any sort of infrastructure."
Russia earns more from the export of nuclear technology than from the export of arms.
Carthago delenda est The US hopes to attain this technology 2026
The Magnitsky Case
How true is the story on which US sanctions against Russia are based?
Exclusive for subscribers
Bill Browder turned the Americans against Putin with his statements about the death of a
whistleblower. However, his story is full of contradictions.
I'm almost tempted to open the month's trial Spiegel subscription on offer at the
walled-off article, but why read a "revelation" about something that all true Kremlin Stooges
the world over have known for years? -- and, I daresay, there are also more than a few who
are really in-the-know about the Magnitsky Case in the USA and in that state where
piece-of-shit Browder is now a citizen.
America eagerly embraced Browder's fabrications and rubbish because his tale fit the image
the United States is fond of cultivating of Russia, land of savagery and state repression
– but also for a more practical reason; it wanted legislation on the books which would
allow it to continue discriminating against Russia after the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was
relaxed, as it legally had to be with Russia's accession to the WTO. All members must be
granted Permanent Normal Trading Relations (PNTR) status by all other members, and America
wanted an instrument which would allow it to let Russia know things had not changed. So the
Magnitsky Act was safely in place before Jackson-Vanik restrictions were lifted.
Poking holes in Browder's story, gratifying as it is, will not make any practical
difference. As we are all aware, America will steamroller ahead as if nothing had happened,
and continue broadcasting its untruths as if it had never been contradicted, and its allies
will follow suit. The real glimmer of light is Germany's increasingly restless relationship
with the United States, and its implications for the completion of Nord Stream II. Once
that's done and dusted, either Russia or Germany can tell the USA to go fuck itself. It will
take years for the fact that Uncle Sam routinely lies in order to support manipulative
actions in its own interests to percolate through to the general public, because it mostly
listens to whoever yells the loudest. But once that pipeline is through and Russia's energy
connection to Europe exclusive of Ukraine is secure, it's just a matter of time before Uncle
Sam loses his grip on the whole region.
Browder and the Magnitsky Narrative: the end of a disinformation campaign?
24. November 2019
Der Spiegel has broken the anti-Russian story of the whistleblower's murder. The lie
construct has been known for some time: the scandal is that the media and politicians have
spread it unquestioned
Just over 10 years after the death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison, a large
news media organization has dared to write a critical article about this anti-Russian myth.
Browder, a shrewd businessman who made his money with tricks and tax evasion in the 1990s, is
another kind of Relotius [Claas-Hendrik Relotius: a former German journalist. He resigned
from Der Spiegel in 2018 after having admitted to numerous instances of journalistic fraud --
ME.] , who has also demonstrated his stance by moving from the USA to Britain for tax
avoidance. Persistent and eloquent, former hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who has allegedly
turned himself into a selfless human rights activist, has portrayed his employee Magnitsky as
a death-defying whistleblower and a fighter against the corrupt system of Vladimir Putin
.
The media and politicians believe in everything that fits in with their ideologies and
interests. But that's not Bidder's theme: if it were, he would have had to critically
question the role of Der Spiegel in this case as well
I any case, Bidder has not really been brave anyway. The European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) had already made a decision about the Magnitsky Case: in September 2019, the court
granted damages to Magnitsky's family because of the conditions of his detention and his
sentencing after his death, but it did not call his death murder, nor did the court speak of
torture and it rejected key points in Browder's story .
Even then the media could have listened, but it didn't: it preferred to follow
Browder's misrepresentation, which stated, "The ECHR decision also completely destroys the
lies and propaganda about Sergei Magnitsky that the Russian government and its paid smear
campaigners in the West have been trying to spread for many years?
The article goes on to say that Bidder presents his article as a revelation of the truth,
and backs up this claim by publishing congratulatory Tweets from admiring subscribers to Der
Spiegel But the article criticising the great revelation in Der Spiegel says nothing new has
been published: what has been "revealed" by Bidder of Der Spiegel was already well known. The
article discusses Nekrasov's revelations and the blocking of the film he made exposing
Browder, stressing that Nekrasov is in no way a Putin fan.
The article critical of the Der Spiegel article says that Bidder's "revelations" also
reveal the ways of fake news story tellers, of how gullible audiences are manipulated, of how
anti-Russian prejudices are vigorously stoked by politicians, governments, Nato and NGOs. The
critical article also points out that the Council of Europe had looked at the case and
blindly accepted the Browder team interpretation of events in the Magnitsky Case, without
doing any independent research itself.
The above-linked article by Florian Rötzer ends thus:
Bill Browder, who otherwise reacts quickly, has not yet commented on the Der Spiegel
article. The strange thing is that Deutsche Welle [ German World Service -- not
Bundestag controlled, aber natürlich! ] has a report in Russian on the
Spiegel article by Bidder, but not in German or English. Bidder does not question this fact
either.
Have the German powers-that-be given the green-light, then, that Browder be exposed so as
to totally undermine the USA reason for imposing sanctions against the Evil Regime, including
its attempts to stop NS-2, whereby the Evil Orcs wish to control the EU energy market,
thereby enslaving the free and democratic satellite Western European satrap states of Uncle
Sam?
When did Kyiv's control of Crimea and the Donbass become critical to the national security
of the United States, when Russia has controlled Ukraine almost without interruption from
Catherine the Great in the 18th century to Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 20th century?
Among the reasons Trump is president is that he raised provocative questions about NATO and
Russia left unaddressed for three decades, as U.S. policy has been on cruise control since the
Cold War.
And these unanswered questions are deadly serious ones.
Do we truly believe that if Russia marched into Estonia, the U.S. would start attacking
the ships, planes and troops of a nation armed with thousands of tactical and strategic
nuclear weapons?
Would NATO allies Spain, Portugal and Italy declare war on Russia?
In 1914 and 1939, in solidarity with the mother country, Britain, Canada declared war on
Germany. Would Justin Trudeau's Canada invoke NATO and declare war on Putin's Russia -- for
Estonia or Latvia?
Under NATO, we are now committed to go to war for 28 nations. And the interventionists who
took us into Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen want U.S. war guarantees extended to other nations
even closer to Russia.
One day, one of these war guarantees is going to be called upon, and we may find that the
American people were unaware of that commitment, and are unwilling to honor it, especially if
the consequence is a major war with a nuclear power.
NATO was formed to protect Europe from the 'enemy' - Russia. But Russia hasn't shown or
proven its threat to Europe for decades - despite the manufactured scaremongering used to
keep the MIC funded. But now, the Chinese can (have) take(n) over that particular role so the
MIC funding is 'safe' and Russia should be taken in as a potential partner and valuable
marketplace for European countries to access.
A ground-based conflict with Russia is a ludicrous prospect - it would turn nuclear in
days - so any form of 'army' to protect those borders is nonsensical. It's not like the
sand-bandit countries where there is no real opposition (to spending) and conflicts can be
manufactured and engineered as a retail source of income.
Funny drawing, Vlad kisses Angela. In real life, Vlad is a big villain, but not a pervert.
How much schnapps needs to be drunk for Merkel to like? 1 liter or 2? This is a joke.
The USSR ceased to exist in 1991, the Russians withdrew their troops from Europe in 1995.
NATO was supposed to protect Europe from the invasion of the USSR - the invasion did not
happen, the USSR traded with Europe. Russia, this country with a normal capitalist economy
and 4 world religions on its territory that coexist peacefully. Russia trades with Europe and
does not attack. NATO is not intended to protect Europe from the Muslim tsunami, and there is
no united European army (not because Europe cannot, but because Europe does not want because
of love for the American "freebie", which is actually cheese in a mousetrap). So why do need
NATO - to suck money and resources from European countries? A good question.
Anyone with even an elementary understanding of geopolitics knows NATO is yet another arm
of US power, and a market for the US MIC.
We Europeans, with the notable exception of the always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history Poles,
do NOT want or need NATO. We are not threatened other than by the consequences of Zionist US
foreign policy.
Russia is our natural ally and reliable trading partner, as is Iran, as is China.
When did Kyiv's control of Crimea and the Donbass become critical to the national security
of the United States, when Russia has controlled Ukraine almost without interruption from
Catherine the Great in the 18th century to Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 20th century?
Among the reasons Trump is president is that he raised provocative questions about NATO and
Russia left unaddressed for three decades, as U.S. policy has been on cruise control since the
Cold War.
And these unanswered questions are deadly serious ones.
Do we truly believe that if Russia marched into Estonia, the U.S. would start attacking
the ships, planes and troops of a nation armed with thousands of tactical and strategic
nuclear weapons?
Would NATO allies Spain, Portugal and Italy declare war on Russia?
In 1914 and 1939, in solidarity with the mother country, Britain, Canada declared war on
Germany. Would Justin Trudeau's Canada invoke NATO and declare war on Putin's Russia -- for
Estonia or Latvia?
Under NATO, we are now committed to go to war for 28 nations. And the interventionists who
took us into Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen want U.S. war guarantees extended to other nations
even closer to Russia.
One day, one of these war guarantees is going to be called upon, and we may find that the
American people were unaware of that commitment, and are unwilling to honor it, especially if
the consequence is a major war with a nuclear power.
NATO was formed to protect Europe from the 'enemy' - Russia. But Russia hasn't shown or
proven its threat to Europe for decades - despite the manufactured scaremongering used to
keep the MIC funded. But now, the Chinese can (have) take(n) over that particular role so the
MIC funding is 'safe' and Russia should be taken in as a potential partner and valuable
marketplace for European countries to access.
A ground-based conflict with Russia is a ludicrous prospect - it would turn nuclear in
days - so any form of 'army' to protect those borders is nonsensical. It's not like the
sand-bandit countries where there is no real opposition (to spending) and conflicts can be
manufactured and engineered as a retail source of income.
Funny drawing, Vlad kisses Angela. In real life, Vlad is a big villain, but not a pervert.
How much schnapps needs to be drunk for Merkel to like? 1 liter or 2? This is a joke.
The USSR ceased to exist in 1991, the Russians withdrew their troops from Europe in 1995.
NATO was supposed to protect Europe from the invasion of the USSR - the invasion did not
happen, the USSR traded with Europe. Russia, this country with a normal capitalist economy
and 4 world religions on its territory that coexist peacefully. Russia trades with Europe and
does not attack. NATO is not intended to protect Europe from the Muslim tsunami, and there is
no united European army (not because Europe cannot, but because Europe does not want because
of love for the American "freebie", which is actually cheese in a mousetrap). So why do need
NATO - to suck money and resources from European countries? A good question.
Anyone with even an elementary understanding of geopolitics knows NATO is yet another arm
of US power, and a market for the US MIC.
We Europeans, with the notable exception of the always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history Poles,
do NOT want or need NATO. We are not threatened other than by the consequences of Zionist US
foreign policy.
Russia is our natural ally and reliable trading partner, as is Iran, as is China.
Putin foe says Fusion GPS was agent for Russia while
helping Clinton in 2016 by Jerry Dunleavy | November 26,
2019 07:14 PM
Print
this article T he company that conducted anti-Trump research for Hillary Clinton's 2016
campaign also worked for the Russian government, producing material that was used by Moscow to
pressure the United States, according to a longtime foe of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Businessman Bill Browder alleged Fusion GPS acted as an agent for Russian interests in 2016,
when the country was trying to combat the Magnitsky Act and its sanctions on Russian
officials.
Browder, 55, championed the
Magnitsky Act, which was named for his tax lawyer, corruption
whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison in 2009 after his
investigation for Browder's business uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars of Russian tax
fraud implicating Russian officials.
Putin, who despises the law, retaliated by banning American adoptions of Russian
children.
"The work that [Fusion GPS co-founder] Glenn Simpson did involved trying to change the
narrative of how Sergei Magnitsky was killed," said Browder. "He and the Russians paying him
wanted people in Washington to believe that Sergei Magnitsky died of natural causes instead of
being killed. Glenn Simpson claimed that Sergei Magnitsky wasn't a whistleblower and that he
was criminal. He also claimed that all of my testimonies to have Magnitsky sanctions imposed
were untrue."
Browder said he believes Fusion GPS's work violated the Foreign
Agents Registration Act . He sent a
complaint to the Department of Justice in 2016, and then-Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Chuck Grassley
urged the department to look into it in 2017.
"We did receive a response from the Justice Department, essentially stating that it can
neither confirm nor deny the existence of a specific FARA investigation," Grassley's office
told the Washington Examiner .
The DOJ declined the Washington Examiner 's request for comment, and a lawyer for
Fusion GPS didn't respond, though the company has previously said
"it was not required to register under FARA and it did not spread false information about
William Browder or Sergei Magnitsky."
Browder pointed out that Fusion GPS and Simpson began working for Russian lawyer Natalia
Veselnitskaya, who would later make headlines for
her meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower , in 2014 and provided her with
anti-Magnitsky research for years. Veselnitskaya, a former Russian prosecutor, maintained
Russian government ties, according to special counsel Robert Mueller, including lobbying
against 2016's expanded Magnitsky Act.
The DOJ alleged that Russia-owned real estate company Prevezon Holdings laundered fraudulent
money, and the
company later settled with the DOJ for $5.9 million in what the department
called "a $230 million Russian tax refund fraud scheme involving corrupt Russian
officials."
Veselnitskaya hired law firm BakerHostetler to help Prevezon in court, and the firm hired
Fusion GPS, which Simpson
confirmed in an interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2017.
"Browder was always eager to testify before Congress or appear on TV, but he did not want to
answer questions from BakerHostetler lawyers about his role as a whistleblower in the Prevezon
case. So the lawyers asked Fusion to figure out how they could get Browder's testimony. What
ensued was a legal game of cat and mouse in which Fusion developed information that would help
BakerHostetler subpoena Browder multiple times, forcing him to testify about his business
activities in Russia and earning Fusion his everlasting enmity. The U.S. government had staked
its case against Prevezon on the credibility of Browder. Yet he was reluctant to explain under
oath where he had obtained his evidence. It was an odd position for a human rights crusader to
take," Simpson and Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch wrote in their new book, Crime in
Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump .
"I participated in two all-day depositions, but the case was settled before it went to
court," said Browder. "Otherwise, I would've been on the witness stand."
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act documents released in 2018 show the DOJ and the FBI
made extensive use of Steele's dossier in 2016. Fusion GPS was
hired by Clinton's campaign and the DNC through the Perkins Coie law firm. Fusion GPS then
hired Steele, who allegedly reached out to Russian sources to put together his dossier.
Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook said they
received briefings from Perkins Coie about Fusion GPS's findings during the campaign.
Browder contended Fusion GPS created a dossier against him, too, by using "false
information."
"Since the Russians were working so closely with Simpson on the anti-Magnitsky, anti-Bill
Browder dossier, it would seem unlikely to me that the Russians wouldn't know that there was
another dossier being created," Browder said.
Mueller's report on Russian election
interference detailed the June 2016 meeting involving Donald Trump Jr., campaign chairman
Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and various Russians, including Veselnitskaya.
The meeting was pitched to Trump's campaign as an opportunity to get damaging information on
Clinton, but Veselnitskaya pulled a bait-and-switch and turned it into a presentation on
Russia's desire to repeal the Magnitsky Act.
Veselnitskaya presented a
short dossier echoing nearly identical Kremlin talking points that were passed
to a Republican congressman by the Russia prosecutor general's office in April 2016,
criticizing the Magnitsky Act and criticizing Browder as a "fugitive criminal" who was engaged
in a massive fraudulent financial scheme in support of Democrats. In his Senate testimony,
Simpson admitted to researching many of the allegations that appeared in Veselnitskaya's
talking points. When Donald Trump Jr. asked Veselnitskaya for proof, she did not provide any,
according to Mueller's report. Russian American lobbyist and former Soviet military officer
Rinat Akhmetshin and the Russians then complained about U.S. sanctions and mentioned Russian
adoption, and the Trump associates considered it a waste of time.
Browder believes that presentation was from Fusion GPS research, though Simpson denies any
foreknowledge of the Trump Tower meeting despite seeing Veselnitskaya the day before, the day
of, and the day after.
Simpson "was a person who was coordinating an advocacy campaign for Natalia Veselnitskaya,
and the Trump Tower meeting seemed to be part of that advocacy campaign," said Browder. "It
seems a little odd that he would know about everything else but not that one meeting."
Veselnitskaya attended the meeting with fellow Russian anti-Magnitsky Act advocates,
including Akhmetshin. Simpson told the
Senate that BakerHostetler instructed Fusion GPS to pass anti-Browder research to
Akhmetshin, who lobbied Congress against the Magnitsky Act. Akhmetshin, who is in Browder's
FARA complaint, criticized Browder in congressional
testimony in 2017 and filed a lawsuit against him
in 2018.
In January, the DOJ unsealed an
indictment against Veselnitskaya, now out of reach in Russia, alleging she'd obstructed
justice during the Prevezon case through secret collaboration with Russia.
Fusion GPS's co-founders said in their book that Prevezon's court case was separate from its
anti-Magnitsky Act activities.
"In early 2016, Prevezon -- apart from the court case -- had launched a lobbying campaign
against the Global Magnitsky Act, working with Akhmetshin, in a backhanded effort to discredit
Browder in the halls of Congress," they wrote.
The firm never registered under FARA, they said, because it was not lobbying.
"Fusion had no say in the matter if Prevezon decided to take evidence from a court case and
repurpose it. But all this would come back to haunt Fusion," they wrote.
snake @95 argues "the deep state does not exist" with circular logic that is massively off
target.
The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters,
the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests. None of those
interests have the ability to make policy and implement regime changes without the deep
state. Yes, outside interests drive the actions of the deep state, but no, those outside
interests have no ability to accomplish anything without their deep state operatives.
If the US federal government bureaucracy was a) much less powerful, b) much more
transparent, and c) more responsive to elected leaders, then none of the bad things would
happen. A pipe dream? Yes - but it is erroneous to make a simple declaration "the deep state
doesn't exist" without any rational arguments to refute my points in @72.
Thank you for your post. You say that there is a deep state, but you then go on to tell us
it is not as deep as we imagine. So, I posit we should call it "the shallow state". It is the
foam on the edge of the sea as it begins to recede from a high tide of corrupt practices,
delicate and lacy at the edges and so mesmerizing and attractive to some. But it is receding.
And out there as it departs the Deep People are waiting. They are the depths of an ocean that
never disappears. At low tide they are still there, and they will feed the incoming tide. At
the turn.
And I also say, you may not care what the future brings, but I do. I have a little
granson, born on my birthday, gazing at me with twinkling eyes from his photograph across the
room. Family is also something we can call Deep and be truthful about that. It runs in both
directions, past and future. The Deep People have Deep Families.
And yes, I know, other grandsons have met untimely deaths this century and are counted as
'collateral damage' by the shallow state. Still they are with us as the past is always with
us; they deepen our persons in unaccountable but irreversible ways. They strengthen our
family commitments. They are always here, in our memories and in our strengths. They are not
collateral; they are the fabric of our determinations, our life blood.
The Deep People do care what happens. The twinkle in their grandsons' eyes burns in
their hearts. It is a fire, a consuming force. It never dies.
"deep state", "deep people", "the swamp" .. a rose by any other name would smell just as
rancid.
"deep people" implies a small, isolated group. IMO, it's more like an iceberg than
seashore foam. 90% of it is hidden from view.
My point was that snake's blame of the oligarchs misses the target. I look at them the way
I look at any other predator - if the opportunity exists, they will take it. The deep state
is THE necessary ingredient for the evil that the US government does.
I too have grandchildren. I am convinced that their lives will be less free, less
prosperous, with less opportunity than what the seven generations of Wills family before me
have experienced in the US for the last 275 years. So what can I do about it? Typing on my
keyboard certainly won't make one whit of difference...
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Other problems exist. Many, many of them.
Let's consider terrain. Terrain is what militaries fight in. Start with the Sierra Madre,
which I suspect Trump doesn't know from Madre Teresa. This is the brutally inhospitable
mountain range in the northwest of Mexico, from which a great many of the narcos come.(Sinaloa
is next door.) Forestation is dense, slopes steep, communication only by narrow trails that the
natives know as well as you know how to find your bathroom. Nobody else knows them. American
infantry would be helpless here. The Narcos would be found only when they chose to be found,
which would not be at opportune moments.
The Sierra Madre Occidental, home of many of the drug traffickers. I have walked in these
mountains, or tried to. It is impossible for infantry, worse for armor, and airplanes can't see
through the trees.
The Tarahumara Indians live in the Sierra Madre. They frequent the trails, sometimes in
groups, and carry things not identifiable from the air. In frustration American forces would do
what they always do: start bombing, or launching Hellfires from drones, at what they think are,
or think may be, or hope might be, narcos. Frequently they would kill innocents having nothing
to do with drugs. This wouldn't bother the military, certainly not remote drone operators in
Colorado or somewhere. They get paid anyway. The Indians who just had their families turned
into science projects couldn't do anything about it.
Well, nothing but join the narcos, who might call this a "force multiplier."
Some other northern Mexican terrain. The Duarte Bridge between Sinaloa and Durango. A
company commander, looking at it, would would have PTSD in advance, just to get a start on
things.
Of the rest of Mexico, much consists of jungle, presenting the same problems as the Sierra
Madre, and of cities and villages. Here we encounter the problem that has proved disastrous for
US forces in war after war: there is no way to tell who is a narco and who isn't.
In cities and towns, narcos are indistinguishable from the general population.
How–precisely how, I want to know–would American troops, kitted out in body armor
and goggles and looking like idiots, fight the narcos in villages with which they were
unfamiliar? The narcos, well armed, would pick off GIs from windows, whereupon the Americans
would respond by firing at random, calling in air strikes, and otherwise killing locals. These
would now hate Americans. The narcos know this. They would use it.
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Chapo's home city. It has a high concentration of narcos. Suppose that
you are an infantry officer, sent to "fight the cartels." You have, say, twenty troops with
you, all with hi-tech equipment and things dangling. How do you propose to fight the cartels
here? Which of the people in the photo, if any, are narcos? You could ask them. That would
work.
Don't expect help from the locals. Most would much rather see you killed than the narcos.
And if they collaborated they and their families would be killed. This would discourage them.
Bright ideas?
Now a point that Schwarzehairdye in the White House has likely not grasped. The narcos are
Mexicans. So is the population. You know, brown, speak Spanish, that kind of thing. The
invaders would not be Mexicans. This matters. Villagers usually do not hate the narcos. These
provide jobs, buy their marijuana crops, often do Robin Hood things to help the locals. Pablo
Escobar did this, Al Capone, Chapo Guzman. There is a whole genre of popular music,
narcocorridos, celebrating the doings of the drug trade. (Corridos Prohibidos ,
by LosTigres del Norte, for example). Amazon has the CD.
Which means that they would side with the narcos instead of the already-hated soldiers,
putos gringos cabrones, que se chinguen sus putas madres.
Further, much of Mexico doesn't much like its government.
And of course the narcos will have the option of fading into the population and waiting for
the gringos to go home. This means that the invasion would become an occupation. The
invading forces would thus need bases, which would become permanent. Bases where? All over the
country, which is where the narcos are?
Getting the American military into one's country is much easier than getting it out. The
world knows this. Mexicans assuredly do. They know that America has wrecked country after
country in the Mideast, always to do something good about democracy and human rights. They know
that America is squeezing Venezuela to get control of its oil, squeezing Iran for the same
reason, attacked Iraq for the same reason, has troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the same
reason, and has just confiscated Syria's oil . Mexico has oil. So when Trump wants to send the
military to "help" fight drugs, what do you suppose the Mexicans suspect?
Another point: Roughly a million American expats live happily in Mexico. These would be
hostages, and they–we–are soft targets. The drones kill five narcos, and the narcos
kill five expats. Or ten, or fifty. What does Washington do now?
Finally, consider what happens when you bomb a country, make life dangerous, kill its
children, destroy the economy and impoverish its people? Answer: They go somewhere else. With
Mexico being made unlivable, Mexicans would have two choices of somewhere else, Guatemala and
.See whether you can fill in the blank. Maybe four or five million of them.
Nuff said. May God protect Mexico from Yanquis who would do it good, from advisers, and then
adviser creep, and then occupation, and then from badly led militaries who have no idea where
they are.
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.
Lavrov "I wouldn't want to drag myself into a discussion about the medical side of this
issue.. If Macron had felt that the diagnosis he made [of NATO] was so evident – he had
all the right to state it. He knows NATO better than me, since he represents a nation which
is a member of the alliance."
"... Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange. ..."
"... Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime Minister. He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government. ..."
"... In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town. ..."
"... Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client's questionable bank transfers. He died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found that untrue. Robertson accused local police of a cover-up. ..."
"... Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could those lawyers be so ignorant about the facts of Browder's massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications? ..."
"... What we are seeing now is no different from the Lula case in Brazil or any one of a thousand similar cases in authoritarian regimes. Upset the Deep State and you face selected targeted application of the law and the destruction of your life and future. ..."
"... because of the peculiar quirks of the legal system in Britain that may include a great deal of secrecy about how aspects of it operate, is how Julian Assange came to have such a dubious legal representation with its various connections to Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky ..."
"... who is going to foot these barristers' bills? ..."
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder, Assange
and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange's defense. Editor
A US government lawyer in the Assange extradition case just wrote a London Times oped
promoting the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Ben Brandon is one of five lawyers in a London network whose spokes link to convicted tax
fraudster William Browder, the U.S. government, and to both sides of the extradition case against whistleblower publisher Julian
Assange.
Here is how the British legal system works. Lawyers are either solicitors who work with clients or barristers who go to court
in cases assigned by the solicitors. To share costs, barristers operate in chambers , which provide office space, including
conference rooms and dining halls, clerks who receive and assign cases from solicitors, and other support staff. London has 210 chambers.
There are not "partners" sharing profits, but members operate fraternally with each other.
Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British
legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK
support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange.
The law firm and chambers involved in the Browder-Assange stories are Mishcon de Reya, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers.
Ben Brandon of Mishcon de Reya and Alex
Bailin of Matrix Chambers co-authored an opinion
article
in The Times of London October 24, 2019 in which they repeated William Browder's fabrications about the death of his accountant
Sergei Magnitsky.
The article aimed to promote the Magnitsky Act which builds a political wall against Russia. It is based on the fake claim that
Magnitsky, the accountant who handled Browder's tax evasion in Russia, was really a lawyer who exposed a government scam.
Except that is not true, there is no evidence for it, and the lies are documented
here . But the Act has prevented the Russians from collecting about $100 million Browder owes in back taxes and illicit stock
buys.
Brandon's and Bailin's connections are notable. Law firms, at least in the U.S., tend to stake out their commitments. Lawyers
who represent unions do not represent companies fighting unions. It appears to be different in Britain, where legal chambers have
members on either side of some cases.
Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime
Minister. He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which
has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government.
Nevzlin's suit was for $50 billion against Russia for money allegedly lost by the nationalization of Yukos Oil. Yukos was obtained
by Khodorkovsky in the mid-90s in one of then Russian President Boris Yeltsin's rigged auctions. Khodorkovsky's bank Menatep ran
the auction.
He paid $309 million for a controlling 78 percent of the state company. Months later, Yukos traded on the Russian stock exchange
at a market capitalization of $6 billion. Not surprising, after Yeltsin departed, the state wanted the stolen assets back.
To add insult to injury, Khodorkovsky laundered profits from Yukos through
transfer-pricing
and other scams.
Transfer pricing is when you sell products to a shell company at a fake low price, and the shell sells them on the world market
at the real price, giving you the rake-off. It cheats tax authorities and minority shareholders.
See how
Khodorkovsky and Browder did this with Russian company Avisma, which Khodorkovsky also got through a rigged auction.
The Times oped co-author, Brandon of Mishcon de Reya, has a startling connection. The day after an extradition request
targeting Julian Assange was
signed by the UK home secretary , Brandon representing the U.S. government, formally opened the extradition case.
Now look at another Assange link. Mark Summers , who is
representing Julian Assange is, along with Bailin,
a member of Matrix Chambers.
But while he is Assange's lawyer, Summers is acting for Assange's persecutor, the U.S. government, in a major extradition
case involving executives of Credit
Suisse in 2013 making fake loans and getting kickbacks from Mozambique government officials.
Does Assange, or those who care about his interests, know he is part of chambers working for the U.S. government?
And where do you put this factoid? Alex Bailin is representing Andrew Pearse, one of the Credit Suisse bankers that the U.S. government,
represented by Summers, is seeking to extradite!
But there's chambers where two members are each supporting both Browder and Assange.
Geoffrey Robertson is founder of Doughty Street Chambers. He is also a longtime Browder / Magnitsky story promoter. He has pitched
implementation of a Magnitsky Act in Australia and has served Browder in UK court.
In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who
claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money
in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town.
Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client's questionable bank transfers. He
died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found
that untrue. Robertson
accused local
police of a cover-up.
He is a legal advisor to Assange and is regularly
interviewed by international media about the case.
Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers also has a Browder connection. She is acting for Paul Radu a journalist and official
of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is being
sued by an Azerbaijan MP. OCCRP is a Browder collaborator.
Browder admits in a deposition
that OCCRP prepared documents he would give to the U.S. Justice Department to accuse the son of a Russian railway official of
getting $1.9 million of $230 million defrauded from the Russian Treasury. The case was settled when the U.S. couldn't prove the charge,
and the target declined to spend more millions of dollars in his defense. OCCRP got the first Magnitsky Human Rights
award , set up for Browder's partners and acolytes.
Robinson is also the longest-serving member of Assange's legal team. She
acted for Assange in the Swedish extradition proceedings and in relation to Ecuador's request to the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights Advisory Opinion proceedings on the right to asylum.
Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could
those lawyers be so ignorant about the
facts of Browder's massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications?
It raises questions about how they are handling the Assange defense.
The individuals cited were asked to respond to points made about them, but none did.
The Telegraph reports on a 2015 private dinner in the home of Doughty Street 's Geoffrey Robertson at which the
Magnitsky myth and sanctions against Russia are pitched to then-Labour-Party-leader Ed Miliband, and Doughty Street lawyer Amal
Clooney and co.:
Today we find aforementioned Browder/Magnitsky touts Alex Bailin, QC (Matrix lawyer and "legal writer for The Guardian, The
Times and The Lawyer – co-writer of the bogus FT Magnitsky column with Ben Brandon), and Geoffrey Robertson, QC (Doughty
Street's eminence grise), both on the Advisory Board of Amal Clooney's " TrialWatch " (part of the Clooney " Foundation
for Justice "): TrialWatch® Advisory Board
universal
The tentacles of the deep state (no longer secret now) are clamping on our life so tightly that one would honestly wish that one
of those extraterrestrial rocks would smash into this planet causing total annhilation –just in order to get rid of these psychopathic
mongrels ruling over us.
I am not sure, though, fantasy could solve problems!
mark
We have a corrupt and politicised "justice" system used for the purposes of intimidation and political persecution. Some people
still believe in fairy stories like the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary.
What we are seeing now is no different from the Lula case in Brazil or any one of a thousand similar cases in authoritarian
regimes. Upset the Deep State and you face selected targeted application of the law and the destruction of your life and future.
Jen
Unfortunately what we don't get in Lucy Komisar's article, perhaps because of the peculiar quirks of the legal system in Britain
that may include a great deal of secrecy about how aspects of it operate, is how Julian Assange came to have such a dubious legal
representation with its various connections to Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Who recommended Mishcon de Reya and
other barristers to Assange and Wikileaks, and who is going to foot these barristers' bills? Are there no other barristers
specialising in human rights cases in Britain who can take on Assange's case or was the case awarded to certain chambers in some
kind of bidding arrangement or some other competitive arrangement?
BTW it's not unusual for law firms in Britain and Australia to have clients whose interests may be opposed, ie a law firm can
represent both a company and a trade union whose members may be employed by that company. What usually happens is that different
teams of lawyers work for the two sides and the work of one team is separated from the other team by internal firewalls. The firewalls
include physical separations: the teams may even work on different floors so as not to share copiers or other office equipment
and lawyers in opposing teams may be discouraged from socialising with each other during lunch and coffee breaks. Sounds bizarre
but this does happen.
R Heybroek
With respect, you can't judge British law by US standards. Barristers are briefed by solicitors, not individual clients, and associate
primarily in areas of competence, e.g. criminal, corporate or tax law. In their specialization, they generally follow the 'cab
rank' principle and accept briefs from prosecution or defence as they arise. It's a strength of the system, not a problem.
Whatever I may think of some of the barristers in Matrix or Doughty, it would be foolish to assume that everyone in a chambers
shares the same political views or attitudes. They do not. They argue like cats and dogs, usually with considerable professional
respect.
I see nothing dubious about the range of experience of Assange's legal team. If his solicitor thinks a barrister has a conflict
of interest, he will withdraw the brief. I'd suggest you direct your enquiries to the instructing solicitor.
Julian Assange was a dead man walking from the time he was taken (totally illegally) from the Ecuadorian embassy. Just about all
the Wikileaks team are now totally corrupted; and as this article points out, most of Assange's legal team are also corrupted.
The alleged mental deterioration of Assange, combined with harsh (and totally unnecessary) prison conditions, might account for
some of this.
An important subsidiary question becomes, why aren't any of his high profile champions asking these questions? John Pilger? Craig
Murray? They all bang on about stuff like 'torture' but never point out that his lawyers totally fail to address this pretty darn
crucial issue. Craig Murray says 'Julian has great lawyers'. Really? If we step back and think for a minute, does it honestly
look that way?
They can't even get him out of solitary or into a lower security prison. Shit, they can't even get his mail delivered adequately
or uphold his right to get regular legal visitation! And yet no one, not even his parents, are complaining about these failures!
And who is running Wikileaks these days? Do we have any way of being sure they aren't just a co-opted shell?
Betrayed planet
To be fair Pilger is one of the few real supporters of Julian along with a handful of musicians. His lone voice is not enough.
I saw a clip of Pilger crying after the recent spectacle of a so called hearing. The presiding judge, The Honorary Upyourbottom
should have been in the dock for perjury, fraud, lying before a court and crimes against humanity.
LawStudent
I'm a 2nd year law student and I can confirm that questions about the conduct of Assange's defence are legion in my school. MNynpeople
talking about the inexplicable lapses. Just s fee usdyes often discussed: Why didn't the defense take up the judge's offer of
bail application? To say 'well they would lose' is counter to the basics of jurisprudence.
Why is there no complaint being lodged about his detention in a maximum security facility when he's on remand – not serving
a sentence – pending an extradition hearing? Why don't his lawyers lodge an appeal to the ECHR based on the testimony of the UN
observers? Why are his lawyers keeping such low media profiles?
It's generally agreed something is very 'off' about this.
L Took
I think his lawyers stated that they were never offered a bail application, even though the judge claimed they had refused one.
But I'm not sure; I had heard previous to this event that the lawyers would not ask because if they lost (the appeal?) Assange
could be further punished for the loss. Is this accurate?
MaryD
It may be relevant that one of Assange's barristers also represents the corporate psyop Extinction Rebellion!
nottheonly1
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions. The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder,
Assange and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange's defense.
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises only one question: What the?
I know it's not comedy, because people get seriously hurt and killed as a result of the transformation of a more or less democratic
government into a well organized criminal organization. Who better to run the courts, than the mob? Mob 'Law' enforcement included.
So, organized crime owns everything. The big club. The biggest profits are made with stuff that was bought to blow up something.
Or somebody. One could ask: 'With links like these, who needs enemies?' Anybody interfering into, or compromising the Mob execution
of the owners' plan, will be taken care of. Laws are written to owners' demands and are quickly as needed in show trials.
The eloquence in describing what is happening right now – and in all other show trials – is comforting.
As it is more like 'a gang of lawyers in revolving door roles in organized crime by Browder and US regime et al versus Julian
Assange, providing Defense for Julian Assange in his case against the same people and the same regime.
I forgot where, but I have heard of such things before.
The World will have to understand that, without the immediate release of Julian Assange, no more rule of law exists on Earth.
And to whomever has not connected the Assange affair with 'pre-emptive incarceration', might for a little longer enjoy playing
outdoor chess on the deck of a sinking cruise ship.
Oh, and yes, the qualifier "six ways to/from Sunday" should also be mentioned as an exemplary business practice by the Mob
regime. Actually, the Mob merged with the regime, with the regime belonging to the owners' club.
Northern
Good to see another article on this, seen several people raising concerns about these associations in independent media over the
last few months, though it's no doubt one of those things that will never be 'officially' addressed. Many people with more knowledge
than I have questioned the wisdom of certain decisions his legal team have made (or not, as the case may be) in recent proceedings.
Craig Murray's account of Julian's recent court appearance reads like something you'd expect from a country with 'the people's
democratic republic' in the name.
On a tangentially related note, anybody reading this who has the impetus to write to Julian in support;
The 'writetoJulian' website which appears at to the top of Google's search results for those who google how to go about such
a thing, is either accidentally or deliberately (one can probably guess which) mis-advising its readers of the requirements. The
website advises several times NOT to include Julian's prisoner number on any correspondence sent to him, but I know from direct
knowledge of communicating with the incarcerated that without the prisoner number your correspondence will be destroyed and neither
you nor the receiver will be notified. I hate to think how many well meaning messages of support for Julian have been 'legally'
destroyed without him seeing them as a result of this.
Northern
Ah, in a limited sliver of good news; The aforementioned website seem to have cottoned on to their mistake after several people
bringing it to their attention. They now advise you should include his number on all correspondence.
Mr Julian Assange
Prisoner #: A9379AY
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK
Betrayed planet
I have long suspected that Julian is not getting proper legal council. That his lawyers have not yet been able to get a proper
hearing whilst he is left to rot in a maximum security prison is suspect in the extreme. The obvious Nazi style behaviour of the
unlawful and fascist U.K. government and its lick spittle judiciary are apparent to all with absolutely no fight back from the
excuse of a media nor indeed 99.9 percent of its compliant increasingly dumbed down and wilfully ignorant population.
What is obvious now to anyone with half an eye open is that the U.K. is now a rogue state where law and justice are meaningless,
where bribery and corruption are common place. That Julian Assange is slowly dying in front of the whole world, will die without
some kind of major intervention is a stain on every single aware English resident. Mind you with a population seemingly set to
vote back in the same filthy vermin that have turned the country into the complete shithole it has become, it's hardly surprising.
Does anybody know if Gareth Pierce is still involved in his case?
nottheonly1
For quite some time now, an odd possibility offers itself – theoretically. Julian Assange is not the messenger. He is the message.
As a messenger, he is somewhat ineffective. He has not been able to convince people that the need for an uprising against lawlessness
exists. That any form of government cannot work when the judiciary is corrupt and that there is no justice in a society ruled
over by a regime.
As a message however, he is in the eyes of masses of people. Probably a majority of humans on Earth know who Julian Assange
is. How many know who he is, where he came from and what it was exactly he did, before he published videos showing how well the
'Support our Troops' deserve was used up in the way it was intended, can only be a guess. Or a dedicated team of statisticians
to hold polls in every country.
So, the published material, that was also leaked by a whistle blower, was proof of how deserving those soldiers were
of our support – showing them killing innocent human beings and 'our Troops' having the greatest times of their lives doing it.
The message is simply: Look, if we can do this to Assange, what do you think we will do to you from Monday to Sunday – if you
get any ideas?
No matter where you are. No matter who you are.
The only antidote to this insanity is the Truth and it be given its day(s) in court. 'Justice Mondays'.
I wonder if Alexander Perepilichnyy's death happened any which way – if indeed he was even a real person – there's only two photos
of him as far as I can tell and the feeling of reality about his is not strong – as the Japan Times says, "What we know of Perepilichnyy
is slight." Could he have just conveniently been invented and disappeared somehow? The story of him spending his last night with
his 22 year-old mistress (the good old 22) in Paris, complaining about his dinner, vomiting and then having his wife the next
day in London prepare his favourite food, sorrel soup, for lunch then going out jogging somehow doesn't ring true and we see a
typical anomaly of faked stories, different versions:
The Guardian: "was found outside his Surrey home"
The Atlantic: "He collapsed on Granville Road, within 100 meters of the house he was renting"
Japan Times: "Then, 50 meters from his home, he staggered into the road and died."
Wikipedia: "[he] was found dead on the road by a neighbour" with a reference to a BBC story makes no mention of neighbour
BBC story: "[he] has been found dead near his home in Weybridge. had collapsed on a road early on the evening"
Collapsed on a road? Wouldn't you give the name of the road in a suburban area?
Rhys Jaggar
Same story in UK sports reporting corrupt industries raking in cash for unprincipled wordsmithery
DiggerUK
The defence team around Julian seems to be unfathomable at many levels. My main concern has been over the unproved allegations
of chemical torture made during his incarceration in Bellmarsh Prison. Why has his defence team not asked for an independent medical
assessment? Why have concerns not been raised with prison visitors who are allowed to investigate independently?
https://www.imb.org.uk/independent-monitoring-boards/
Craig Murray who saw Julian on his last court appearance wrote of his condition .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
is it as a result of drugs used during interrogations, or is it down to mental trauma after what he has been through.
Either way, his defense team and close friends need to up their game.
This article is not the first time that concerns have been raised in a worrying manner about the defence team around Julian
_
Rhys Jaggar
It is a standard Uk tactic to have someone try to beat you up then publicly say what a friend of yours they are. Happened to me
four times: I called the lot of them out on it, something which gets them on their faux high horses very quickly
Harry Stotle
Amazing isn't it, the way the legal system goes into hyperdrive pursuing those who expose war crimes while nonchantly turning
a blind eye to those who commit them (no matter how high the body count). Harder to find a more glaring example of the way hypocrisy
defines the elite's relationship with things like morality, fairness or decency, not least because no western politician has ever
been held to account for the havoc they have unleashed (in any court prosecuting war crimes).
Ellen DeGeneres hi-fiving with George Bush. British MPs pretending a courageous whistle blower is not being tortured to death
just a few miles from parliament.
Needless to say the MSM has fully sided with the criminals: first denigrating Julian Assange, then mocking his plight – this
gave way to lies, and now silence.
Put simply can anyone expect justice in Britain if their actions conflict with the ethos of the gangsters who control Britain's
economic, media and military interests?
Rhys Jaggar
We are actually approaching apartheid South Africa in that regard, namely contempt for legal due process. Not quite had the Met
coppers beating Assange over the head like SA cops did to Steve Biko, but we are slowly getting there
The US openly occupies parts of Syria, boasts of taking it resources and supported the
attempts of the Kurds to set up their own little state, until the Turks blew a hissy fit.
And
yet it has the gall to call out what Russia does in the Ukraine as a breach of international
law.
"... On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job of our military is not to police the world." ..."
"... This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy. ..."
"... Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief (e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy. These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other means, they will be real reasons. ..."
"... One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically, in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism, foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego, appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous. ..."
"... For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times ..."
Over the past few months President Trump has unilaterally by Tweet and telephone begun to
dismantle the U.S. military's involvement in the Middle East. The irony is amazing, because in
a general overarching narrative sense, this is what the marginalized antiwar movement has been
trying to do for decades.
1
Prof. Harry Targ, in his important piece "United States foreign policy: yesterday, today,
and tomorrow," (MR online, October 23, 2919), reminds us of the factional dispute among U.S.
foreign policy elites over how to maintain the U.S. empire. On the one hand are the neoliberal
global capitalists who favor military intervention, covert operations, regime change,
strengthening NATO, thrusting China into the enemy vacuum and re-igniting the Cold War with
Russia. All of this is concealed behind lofty rhetoric about humanitarianism, protecting human
rights, promoting democracy, fighting terrorism and American exceptionalism. Their mantra is
Madeleine Albright's description of the United States as the world's "one indispensable
nation."
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal
budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant
policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed
from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe,
not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless,
ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job
of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very different
provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an insular
"Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about
what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible
to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current
U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents
of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy.
Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a
neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha
over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging
imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief
(e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy.
These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other
means, they will be real reasons.
One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically,
in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his
reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism,
foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego,
appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would
be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous.
For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the
Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times and
The Washington Post , NSA, Zionist neocons, the DNC, establishment Democrats, some
hawkish Republican senators, many lifestyle liberals still harboring a sentimental faith in
American goodness and even EU and NATO elites who've benefited from being faithful lackeys to
Washington's global imperialism.
In a recent interview, Major Danny Sjursen, retired army officer and West Point instructor
with tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, notes that "The last bipartisan issue in American
politics today is warfare, forever warfare." In terms of the military, that means " even the
hint of getting out of the establishment interventionist status quo is terrifying to these
generals, terrifying to these former intelligence officers from the Obama administration who
seem to live on MSNBC now." Sjursen adds that many of these generals (like Mattis) have already
found lucrative work with the military industrial complex.
2
In response to Trump's announcement about removing some U.S. troops from the region, we find
an op-ed in The New York Times by Admiral William McRaven where he states that Trump
"should be out of office sooner than later. It's time for a new person in the Oval Office,
Republican, Democrat or Independent. The fate of the nation depends on it." The unmistakeable
whiff of support for a soft coup is chilling. If Trump can't be contained, he must be deposed
one way or another.
And this is all entirely consistent with the fact that the national security state was
totally caught off guard by Trump's victory in 2016. For them, Trump was a loose cannon,
erratic and ultra-confrontational, someone they couldn't control. Their favored candidate was
the ever reliable, Wall Street-friendly, war-mongering Hillary Clinton or even Jeb Bush. Today,
barring a totally chastised Trump, the favorites include a fading Biden, Pence, a reprise of
Clinton or someone in her mold but without the baggage.
For Trump's establishment enemies, another closely related failing is his habit of blurting
out inconvenient truths. I'm not the first person to say that Trump is the most honest
president in my lifetime. Yes, he lies most of the time but as left analyst Paul Street puts
it, "Trump is too clumsily and childishly brazen in laying bare the moral nothingness and
selfishness of the real material-historical bourgeois society that lives beneath the veils of
'Western civilization' and 'American democracy.'"
3
All his predecessors took pains or were coached to conceal their imperialist actions behind
declarations of humanitarian interventionism but Trump has pulled the curtains back to reveal
the ugly truths about U.S. foreign policy. As such, the carefully calibrated propaganda fed to
the public in endless reiterations over a lifetime is jeopardized whenever Trump utters a
transparent truth. This is intolerable.
Here are a few examples culled from speeches, interviews and press reports:
+ At a May 10, 2017 Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislayak, Trump said he was unconcerned about Moscow's interference
in the U.S. election because "We do the same thing in elections in other countries." [White
House officials were so alarmed they tried to limit access to the transcript].
+ When asked about whether Putin is a killer, Trump sarcastically asked whether "our
country was so innocent?" and added, "Our country does plenty of killing."
+ His reaction to Saudi Arabia's murder of Khashoggi was that "they really messed up."
[Translation: He/our government didn't care about what happened except that the Saudis
bungled the job. Uttering this inconvenient truth removed the usual fig leaf claim of moral
outrage and checked off another box on the Trump-Must-Go list maintained by the
globalists].
+ "The Kurds are no angels." [This dried up all the crocodile tears being shed by both
Dems and Republicans].
+ On Libya: Asked about a role for the U.S. in Libya, Trump responded "I do not see a
role in Libya. I think the United States has, right now, enough roles. We're in a role
everywhere." He did say "I would just go in and take the oil," and repeated this intention
regarding Syria. [Once again Trump sabotaged any pretense of righteous motives behind
Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East. To wit: It's always been about blood for
oil].
+ When firing John Bolton, his former national security advisor, Trump remarked "He made
some very big mistakes. When he talked about the Libya model for Kim Jong Un, that was not a
good statement to make. You just look at what happened with Gaddafi." [Here, Trump's truth
telling undermined the standard U.S. position by saying it makes perfect sense for other
countries to obtain nukes if they wish to avoid being destroyed by us.]
+ "We're in many, many countries. I do know the exact number of countries we have troops
in but I'm embarrassed to say it because it's so foolish. We're in countries that don't even
like us some people, whether it's – – you call it the military-industrial complex
or beyond that, they'd like me to stay the want me to fight forever That's what they want to
do, fight. A lot of companies want to to fight because they make their weapons based on
fighting, not based on peace. And they take up a lot of people. I want to bring our soldiers
back home."
+ During a private military briefing, Trump stunned officials by scowling, "Seriously,
who gives a shit about Afghanistan?" And he continued, "So far we've in for $7 trillion,
fellas. $7 trillion including Iraq. Worst decision ever "
+ On Ukraine: "The people of Crimea would rather be with Russia than where they
were."
+ On Syria, "Let someone else fight over this long blood stained sand." And more broadly,
he said "The same people that I watched and read -- give me and the United States advice --
were the people I've been watching and reading for many years. They are the ones who got us
into the Middle East mess but never have the vision or courage to get us out. They just
talk."
+ Responding to South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham's criticism: "The people of
South Carolina don't want us to get into another war with Turkey, a NATO member, or with
Syria. Let them fight their own wars."
+ On Middle East wars: "All of those lives lost, the young men and women gravely wounded
-- so many -- the Middle East is less safe, less stable, and less secure than before these
conflicts began."
As noted earlier, the endgame is not in sight. Trump seems without a clear strategy for
moving forward and from all reports he can't depend on his current coterie of White House
advisors to produce one. Further, he may lack the necessary political in-fight skills or
tenacity to see it through. When some of his Republican "allies" savaged his announcement to
withdraw troops from Syria, he backtracked and made some, at least cosmetic concessions.
However, the fact that Trump's position remains popular with his voter base and especially with
veterans of these wars will give pause to Republicans. If some finally join the Democrats in
voting for impeachment over Ukraine-gate they may minimize re-election risks by hiding their
real motives behind pious claims -- as will most Democrats -- about "protecting the
constitution and the rule of law".
Now, lest I be misunderstood, nothing I've written here should be construed as support for
Donald Trump or that I believe he's antiwar. Trump is aberration only in that his brand of
Western imperialism means that the victims remain foreigners while U.S. soldiers remain out of
harm's way. He knows that boots on the ground can quickly descend into bodies in the ground and
unlike his opponents, coffins returning to Dover Air Base are not worth risking his personal
ambitions. This is clearly something to build upon. We don't know if Trump views drones, cyber
warfare and proxies as substitutes but his intra-elite opponents remain extremely dubious. In
any event, that's another dimension to expose and challenge.
Finally, we know the ruling class in a capitalist democracy -- an oxymoron -- expends
enormous time and resources to obtain a faux "consent of the governed" through misinformation
conveyed via massive, lifelong ideological indoctrination. For them, citizen's policing
themselves is more efficient than coercion and precludes raising questions that might
delegitimize the system. Obviously force and fear are hardly unknown -- witness the mass
incarceration and police murder of black citizens -- but one only has to look around to see how
successful this method of control has been.
Nevertheless, as social historian Margaret Jacoby wisely reminds us, "No institution is safe
if people simply stop believing the assumptions that justify its existence."
4 Put another way, the system simply can't accommodate certain "dangerous ideas."
Today, we see promising political fissures developing, especially within the rising
generation, and it's our responsibility to help deepen and widen these openings through
whatever means at our disposal.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
"... If you enjoyed this original article, please consider ..."
"... making a donation ..."
"... to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Consider Israel's 1967 war for the Golan Heights, WWI partitions of Germany, Spanish American war, What am I missing? ..."
"... "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." ..."
"... Clearly, the UN is the arbiter of war crimes but they only ever find small, weak offenders guilty. ..."
"... The powerful countries like the US, Britain and Europe are not even investigated for war crimes let alone prosecuted. War crimes are only war crimes if there is someone there to police, prosecute and punish the offenders. There is no such authority, so reference to war crimes is just self gratification and meaningless. The US doesn't even pretend to adhere to international law. ..."
"... You can't be President of the US without engaging in war crimes. They all serve the military industrial complex. At least Trump does some things right instead of 100% for the elite and their NWO. ..."
"... I agree he's stupid, generally. But it seems pretty rational for any US President to expect he (or she) will never face any consequences for the horrific crimes they commit. ..."
"... The trouble is, angry spittle, that the US will get away with this pillage, as it has done in the past. The only difference between this "prez" and the ones before him is his *boasting* openly, publicly about America's war crimes. ..."
"... The issue of "securing oil" makes a lot if sense in this perspective. Syria is not as utterly miserable as planned, but quite miserable indeed, and delaying her access to her own oil will keep it that way. ..."
What the president advocated was one of the most telling statements of his presidency. It
amounted to an admission that he is perfectly willing to commit a war crime.
P resident Donald Trump on Sunday held a highly unusual press
conference to announce the successful special forces operation the night before that
resulted in the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When Trump read his prepared
statement and did not walk away from the podium, my first thought was, "Oh, boy. How much
classified information is he going to release now?" My own informed opinion is that he released
a lot, talking about who did the raid, how they did it, where they launched from, what other
countries were involved, and the fact that special forces elements remained on-scene for two
hours to collect documentary intelligence. Often, those kinds of details leak out in the days
and weeks after a raid like this. But they never, ever come from the president himself.
Trump also gloated
inappropriately that Baghdadi "ran whimpering, crying, and screaming all the way" before
detonating a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. The whimpering, crying,
and screaming part probably wasn't true. After all, the raid was in the middle of the night and
Baghdadi had fled into a tunnel to try to escape the onslaught. It would have been impossible
to know if he was crying down there. Trump added about Baghdadi, "He died like a dog. He died
like a coward. The world is now a much safer place."
>>Please
Donate to Consortium News' Fall Fund Drive<<
Very few people in the Middle East keep dogs as pets. This was an insult just for the sake
of insult. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad Baghdadi is dead. He was a coldblooded murderer,
child killer, and terrorist, and the world is a better place without him in it. But the insults
were unnecessary.
President Donald Trump announcing the U.S. killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. (Twitter)
All of that is irrelevant to the story, though. The most interesting part of the president's
press conference was his segue into a non sequitur
about Iraq. Mid way through the press conference a reporter asked Trump about what "brilliant"
people helped in his decision-making process for the operation. Trump's response was one of the
most telling statements of his presidency. Indeed, it was an admission that he is perfectly
willing to commit a war crime, an impeachable offense, as part of his personal ideology. Here's
the exchange :
Reporter: "You -- you mentioned that you had met some -- gotten to know some brilliant
people along this process who -- who had helped provide information and -- and -- and advice
along the way. Is there anyone in particular or would you like to give anyone credit for
getting to this point today?"
Trump: "Well, I -- I would but if I mention one, I have to mention so many. I spoke to
Senator Richard Burr this morning and as you know, he's very involved with intelligence and
the committee. [Note: Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is the chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.] And he's a great gentleman. I spoke with Lindsey Graham just a
little while -- in fact, Lindsey Graham is right over here, and he's been very much involved
in this subject and he's -- he's a very strong hawk, but I think Lindsey agrees with what
we're doing now. And again, there are plenty of other countries that can help them patrol. I
don't want to leave 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers on the border. But where Lindsey and I
totally agree is the oil.
"The oil is, you know, so valuable. For many reasons. It fueled ISIS, number one. Number
two, it helps the Kurds, because it's basically been taken away from the Kurds. They were
able to live with that oil. And number three, it can help us, because we should be able to
take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of
our great companies to go in there and do it properly. Right now it's not big. It's big oil
underground but it's not big oil up top. Much of the machinery has been shot and dead. It's
been through wars. But -- and -- and spread out the wealth. But no, we're protecting the oil,
we're securing the oil. Now that doesn't mean we don't make a deal at some point.
"But I don't want to be -- they're -- they're fighting for 1,000 years, they're fighting
for centuries. I want to bring our soldiers back home, but I do want to secure the oil. If
you read about the history of Donald Trump, I was a civilian. I had absolutely nothing to do
with going into Iraq and I was totally against it. But I always used to say that if they're
going to go in -- nobody cared that much but it got written about -- if they're going to go
in -- I'm sure you've heard the statement because I made it more than any human being alive.
If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil. They never did. They never did. I know Lindsey
Graham had a bill where basically we would have been paid back for all of the billions of
dollars we've spent."
Pillaging
What Donald Trump is advocating here, in his very Donald Trump kind of way, is "pillaging."
He is advocating taking Iraq's oil by force, ostensibly as payment for our "liberation" of that
country. This is clearly and definitively a war
crime .
International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The
Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even after
taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe punishment
as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." In The Hague Regulations of 1907, two
provisions stipulate clearly that "the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault,
is prohibited," and that "pillage is formally forbidden." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have both formally reaffirmed that
pillaging a country of its natural resources is illegal and is considered to be a war crime.
It's as simple as that.
It matters not one whit if Lindsey Graham has a bill to take Iraq's oil. It doesn't matter
if Trump thinks we should take the oil as reimbursement for U.S. aggression against that
country. What matters here is the rule of law, and the law is clear. It's bad enough that the
U.S. military is in Syria illegally. (There are only three ways to send troops to a foreign
country legally: If the troops are invited by the country; if the country attacks the United
States; or with the permission of the United Nations Security Council.) Let's not add more
international crimes to the ones we've already committed.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
If you enjoyed this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like
this one.
Vincent Castigliola , October 30, 2019 at 14:03
We have no right undertaking any military action in Syria or taking or deciding how
Syria's oil should be used. I also respect John K; however, I question his characterization
of taking control of Syrian territory or resources as "pillage".
I would distinguish the literal definition and also ask him to cite a single instance in
which the victor in a war didn't take property fro the loser.
Consider Israel's 1967 war for the Golan Heights, WWI partitions of Germany, Spanish American
war,
What am I missing?
You're missing that the law changed over time and that Israel's pillage of Palestine is an
ongoing legal issue.
1949 4th Geneva Convention, Article 33: "Pillage is prohibited."
Article 53:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging
individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public
authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such
destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
GMCasey , October 31, 2019 at 11:37
Vincent, I think you missed the pillage of America when the Supreme Court ruled that
corporations are people too.
This has been a "pillage" act from day one The US Congress, never declared a war on
Syria.
GMCasey , October 31, 2019 at 11:57
Vincent, you forgot how America took down the free nation of Hawaii and its queen. Then
there's the Whiskey Rebellion when America was forming that was pretty depressing too as it
let the citizens know that freedom was missing from certain classes. The sadness of America's
continual influence in South America was begun so long ago, and remember, the land on which
Guantanamo is situated does belong to Cuba -- -and then of course, Taft and the Philippines
-- -- – actually, it seems since the beginning of America's time this nation has not
seriously committed to making ,"a more perfect union," for its citizens and the world -- --
–maybe the Climate Crisis will rein us in.
robert e williamson jr , October 30, 2019 at 13:00
RE: my earlier comment!
The US Government has been a thief ever since those who created it started stealing the
North American Continent from the indigenous people who lived here. Never mind the genocide
the white man prosecuted against those people.
We been stealing oil from the middle east ever since the 1950's. Now that the problems
created world wide by the super wealthy elitists, SWETS, greed are coming back to haunt us
has the deep state decided we need to be governed by a dictator or is the dictator the excuse
for the security state to take over the government because a dictator got elected potus?
Vera Gottlieb , October 30, 2019 at 12:56
All one needs to do is study up close a world map, locate all the countries rich in
natural resources and bingo know where the US will meddle next, bring "democracy and human
rights", instigate civil unrest and then intervene. All in a nutshell: stealing.
robert e williamson jr , October 30, 2019 at 12:43
Anyone, the only republicans talking for the last two years, who supports the proposition
that the "Orange Apocalypse " could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it needs
to be in the dock also. . The one thing the security state, deep state, intelligence
community and congress have all trumpeted, pardon the pun, is the U.S. does not support
dictators. Right.
Er, that is dictators anywhere the U.S. security state, deep state, intelligence community
and congress doesn't want them.
The CIA history does support that last statement BTW.
CIA has stellar record of interfering in elections and overthrowing legitimately elected
rulers the globe over. Successful endeavors CIA calls them I believe.
The CIA went against the conventions of democracy by supporting dictators as soon as the
agency was created. See the Dulles Bros. and the United Fruit Company saga. The U.S. foreign
policy has been schizophrenic ever since.
Rob , October 30, 2019 at 12:36
Hey, maybe the pillaging of natural resources acquired by military conquest can be added
to the list of impeachment charges against Trump. That list could stretch across an ocean, if
the Dems include all of Trump's impeachable offenses. Ukrainegate is possibly the least
serious of all.
Michael McNulty , October 30, 2019 at 11:53
If Al Capone was alive today he wouldn't go into organised crime and bribe officials, he'd
go into Wall Street and own them.
Dale , October 30, 2019 at 10:18
Excellent article, John. I will never forget the oil guys gathering in my Bahrain office
with their maps of Iraq's oil fields. I don't think they have yet made their millions, but I
have no doubt they expect they will.
"International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The
Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even
after taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe
punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." "
As if that was anything new. The USA| pilfered tens of thousands of patents after WW2 fom
Germany – from private companies. The confiscation of German foreign accounts, like in
WW1 the removing of machinery and the dismantling of Factories etc. etc. The USA is no
diffrnet in this aspect than what the Nazis did in the areas they occupied. See:
spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-29194050.html
Michael McNulty , October 30, 2019 at 12:04
Regarding patent theft, I read the two places the Nazis headed for when invading a country
were the Central Bank and the Patent Office. It turns out the pulse engine they used on the
V1 Doodlebug was a design stolen from the Patent Office in Paris. The design was granted a
patent around the end of WWI but it had not been in production because nobody had a practical
use for it. Until the Germans did.
Keith , October 30, 2019 at 09:40
When it is said that "we take the oil," what is meant is that our oligarchs are taking the
oil. "We" are not taking the oil, they are. I wonder if, when the time comes that the means
of production are seized in an uprising in this country if those leading such uprising will
be considered war criminals.
Nathan Mulcahy , October 30, 2019 at 08:02
There is nothing surprising or unusual about Trump saying that he is willing to commit war
crimes. His immediate predecessors (Obama, Bush and Clinton) have all committed war crimes
and all are celebrated widely as great statesmen (one of them recently even as a "peace
expert"). It is just that, unlike his predecessors, Trump does not care about the false
facade.
What is stunning is not Trump's bluntness, but the utter disregard for (international) law
by both political "parties" (I'd rather call them two brands of the same Mafia organization),
our so called "media" (I'd rather call them propaganda arms of the said Mafia organization),
but also of the "intellectuals" of the land, and of course the vast, vast majority of its
citizens. (Of course I exclude the readers of this website, and of similar news media from my
condemnation).
john wilson , October 30, 2019 at 07:02
If plundering the oil was America's only war crime we would think that wasn't so bad. The
war crimes committed by the West are so huge that much of them are never reported. Clearly,
the UN is the arbiter of war crimes but they only ever find small, weak offenders guilty.
The
powerful countries like the US, Britain and Europe are not even investigated for war crimes
let alone prosecuted. War crimes are only war crimes if there is someone there to police,
prosecute and punish the offenders. There is no such authority, so reference to war crimes is
just self gratification and meaningless. The US doesn't even pretend to adhere to
international law.
@ "The war crimes committed by the West are so huge that much of them are never
reported."
I disagree. I think generally they are reported but are not identified as the war crimes
that they are. E.g., the wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan,
etc.
Dao Gen , October 30, 2019 at 02:53
It's unlikely that Trump is sending US troops back into Syria for economic or for
long-term reasons. Oil is just a smokescreen. Probably there are several real reasons:
1. Lindsey Graham is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so Graham would oversee a
possible Senate trial if the foolish Dems choose to impeach. Right after Trump's recent
pullout, the neocon Graham was furious and said he would support impeachment. Trump needs to
mollify Graham and other neocon Repubs for a while for the sake of his own survival.
2. The DINO lib-neocon Dem leadership, attacked Trump ferociously from the right. And the
Repub leadership in the House all voted with the Dems to censure Trump for his very helpful
pullout. With impeachment likely, Trump can't ignore this situation.
3. The MSM are overwhelmingly neocon about foreign affairs, and they have put out many
stories romanticizing the Kurds, who have actually done a fair amount of ethnic cleansing
against Christians, Sunnis, and various tribal groups, so millions of Americans have been
brainwashed into thinking Trump actually "betrayed" the poor Kurds, whereas it was the
pro-PKK leadership of the Kurds who betrayed ordinary Kurds by not reconciling with Syria
long ago. After all, Trump announced last December that he was soon going to withdraw from
Syria. If the PKK-affiliated leaders had been realistic, there would have been no Turkish
invasion. But the MSM hide this situation, thus putting great pressure on Trump.
4. France and Israel and much of the US security state want to continue to use the Kurds as
tools to balkanize Syria, attack the Syrian government, and block Iran. They are fighting
back hard against Trump.
Ultimately Trump's reasons for staying in Syria are basically kabuki to pacify the neocons
and strengthen his domestic political position. Of course this does not justify his war
crimes. However, US forces are unlikely to stay for a long time in Syria for several reasons,
and when Trump sees a good opening, surely he will try to make another realistic withdrawal
after the impeachment farce has passed. Probably Putin will come up with some kind of
diplomatic solution that will allow the US to save face while withdrawing. The conditions
which will limit US oil banditry in Syria are:
1. After impeachment has passed and after the Syrian government liberates Idlib province, it
will send its military to eastern Syria, and the small US force will be obliged to leave.
Neither Trump nor the Syrians want a war to break out over second-rate oil fields, so
diplomacy will win out.
2. The Kurds normally look down on Arabs and discriminate against them, so there is no way
the Arab tribes now running the Deir Ezzour oil field will allow the Kurds to come in and
take it away from them. Likewise, further to the northeast the Kurds have been pushed out of
several oil fields which they grabbed after Isis forced the Syrian government to leave the
area.
3. Trump's base doesn't at all like this plan to send US troops back into Syria. If Trump
wants to be reelected, he'll be forced to withdraw by late spring of 2020. By then Trump's
base will be more important to him than the DC neocons.
This Great Oil Rustling Expedition is actually the last hurrah for the US in Syria. The US
has definitely lost in Syria, but the neocons are just too stupid, stubborn, narcissistic,
and immature to be able to come out and directly say, "We lost. Let's move on." Instead they
have to grandstand and pretend they are winning until the very last moment. How many more
people will have to die because of the vanity of the neocons and the weakness of Trump? Let
us pray there will not be many.
Dale , October 30, 2019 at 10:15
Can you supply corroboration for your allegations against the Kurds? I went looking and
found an old Telegraph article, which identified a small part of Syria where Kurdish
operations had driven Syrians toward ISIL.
But I also found this:
See: medium.com/@makreyi/have-the-syrian-kurds-committed-ethnic-cleansing-8af3c33abf6c :
"YPG has had its share of faults. Crimes have been committed in regions under their
control. Some members of Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) -- a multi-national force made up of
Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen and other minorities -- have committed violations against civilians.
And those few perpetrators were reprimanded by SDF and YPG. However, by no means have the
Kurds committed ethnic cleansing and forced displacement against any ethnic or religious
group. Despite their faults, the Kurds have considerably done a phenomenon job in protecting
the civilians of all backgrounds."
Trump's no more guilty of war crimes than every President since I've been alive, for 69
years. And even Presidents before then. You can't be President of the US without engaging in
war crimes. They all serve the military industrial complex. At least Trump does some things
right instead of 100% for the elite and their NWO.
dfnslblty , October 30, 2019 at 09:45
¿What?
potus does few things correctly, and economically those things benefit the elite.
Peter , October 29, 2019 at 21:09
Historically, who benefits by emboldening the the fly overs? In show business,
entertainers always starts out by telling their audience how great they are. Essentially,
lodging their tongues up the audience's bum. Trump's got his tongue so far up the fly over's
bums, well, it's just embarrassing really. This is the recipe for popularity. Trump tells
American's just what they want to hear. Exceptionalism on steroids.
angry spittle , October 29, 2019 at 20:46
The stupid idiot announces to the world he is about to commit a war crime. That on top of
his bone headed admissions of several other crimes. The guy is so stupid he probably thinks
Cheerios are donut seeds.
Cambo mambo , October 30, 2019 at 01:14
I agree he's stupid, generally. But it seems pretty rational for any US President to
expect he (or she) will never face any consequences for the horrific crimes they commit.
Are you actually suggesting Trump would ever face justice if he sent ExxonMobil to take
over Syria or Iraqi oil wells, by force? Bush did much, much worse. Obama committed horrible
war crimes. Why would Trump face consequence when they didn't? Believing he would is what's
"stupid", imo.
AnneR , October 30, 2019 at 08:34
The trouble is, angry spittle, that the US will get away with this pillage, as it has done
in the past. The only difference between this "prez" and the ones before him is his
*boasting* openly, publicly about America's war crimes.
Of course, the Strumpet is clueless about such things as the Geneva Convention. Mind you,
even being aware of it doesn't mean that the US president and admin and Pentagon etc will in
fact abide by any of the international laws regarding war. The past 70 years have made that
absolutely clear. And so far as I recall the US has refused to agree to any possibility of
its politicos, military, secret agency folks being tried for war crimes by any international
body. So the whole political, MIC, corporate-capitalist-imperialist set up here feels
completely free to destroy, steal, lay claim to, give away, kill, torture – as it
pleases anywhere it wants, when and how it wants.
The stupidity of Trump may be exaggerated. Keep in mind that he is a businessman who had
his key property bankrupted and survived pretty well. Superficially, bankruptcy is a symptom
of stupidity, but the trick is to make OTHER people to loose money and yet continue in spite
of common wisdom of lost trust etc.
Exhibit one is "insane" endeavor to bring Iran to its knees by unilaterally breaking a
multilateral agreement and imposing sanctions that would be utterly unenforceable because no
serious country would cooperate. Initially that was my thinking, all leaders of major allied
countries were against and promised measures to resist. And "heroically" petitioned to
Washington to be allowed to do so. Washington gave a limited time reprieve and otherwise
refused. So that make them sad, although quickly they focused on other troubles. Trump proved
that Amercan ability to get away with any s t imaginable was greatly underestimated.
Thus Trump's citizenry can rejoice that America proved better than before that it has
unique power to make selected other countries very misreable. Wimps like Obama were dabbling
in that too, but now the lives of Venezuela and Iran are worse than before. Not that allies
and lap dog countries do well, but not as miserable. And leaders from Equador to Lithuania
can be glad that following America is a wise choice, the alternative is worse, even if they
are periodically humiliated.
The issue of "securing oil" makes a lot if sense in this perspective. Syria is not as
utterly miserable as planned, but quite miserable indeed, and delaying her access to her own
oil will keep it that way.
To summarise, "admitting to crimes" is not stupid if you can get away with it. But it is
evil.
JustAMaverick , October 29, 2019 at 20:14
From here on out the rule of law will have very little meaning if any at all
internationally or otherwise. We can't vote our way out and the corporate fascists and the
military industrial machine have assumed virtually total control of everything. They will not
give that power back, nor will they give up one cent of their ill gotten gains without a
fight .a fight they have been preparing for, for almost forty years.
America is truly a Kleptocracy with all the goals and lack of ethics or morals that word
implies. We have let them sow an enormous amount of greed, hate and ignorance while they
lobotomized the citizenry with endless programming and propaganda, and that crop is soon to
be reaped. It will be bad. Really bad Worse, nobody even addresses the real issues let alone
unites to defend themselves.
To my eyes the daylight is almost gone and all I can see in the future is as Orwell put
it: "A boot kicking you in the face forever."
The problem traces back to the conquest of Iraq. The article implicitly assumes the
existence of a sovereign entity named
"Iraq." That is wrong. There is no such entity. There was one up until 2003. Then U.S. imperialism
invaded and destroyed it. Iraq's oil was taken by force right there.
What resulted is an occupation political project in place of the former Iraqi state. Then
the plan went wrong. Iran seized control of the project entity through elections. The first
and second "Iraqi prime ministers" under the conquest represented an Iranian clerical
organization called the Islamic Dawa.
Now, the occupation political entity was granted exclusive control of Iraq's oil revenues
under the terms of the conquest. The U.S. imperialists figured they would remain in control
of the entity, but Iran gained control.
Trump doesn't want to take Iraq's oil away not from Iraq. He wants to take it away from
Iran.
Jimmy Gates , October 29, 2019 at 18:58
Valid call. Include, in the prosecution, all previous executives who are\ were complicit
in these crimes. We all know the Presidents etc, but Congress members should be indicted and
IC members as well.
Nick , October 30, 2019 at 10:25
Don't forget 'journalists'! Bill Kristol and Judith Miller should be in the dock as
well!
lizzie dw , October 29, 2019 at 18:44
I agree totally with this author. Taking Syria's oil is Not A Good Thing. It is blatant
thievery to take something from a sovereign country "because you can", then try to justify it
by some lame statement. What additionally bothers me is that this attitude has been present
in the USA through many administrations. Look at the Ukraine since 2014. Many long time
politicians were involved with getting money from Ukraine – for no reason other than
they were American and in charge. Look at Afghanistan and the poppy fields our soldiers are
guarding for the CIA. Thieves, all of them. Look at Clinton and the Central American drugs
through Mina. We can look at the Turks looting areas of Syria of whole factories(!) while
they were occupying the northeast. What about WWII? Politicians took whatever was not nailed
down from Germany. Stealing the art. Look at Britain only now returning some artifacts they
took out of countries they were administrating decades ago. I am sickened by all of them and
I sure am disgusted with President Trump.
rodney lowery , October 29, 2019 at 18:39
My circle of friends thought Trump's speech and actions were refreshing and perfect to
reduce these terrorist leaders publicly to nothing. You libs just can't get it. Trump is not
going to give respect and dignity to murderers. We take their life and dress them down
publicly, and take away any prestige they may have had towards other terrorists. And since
when do democrats and libs care about war crimes? why don't you go apologize for us.
ML , October 30, 2019 at 09:01
Your lack of respect for decency, decorum, the rule of international law, statesmanship,
diplomacy, etc etc, is simply breathtaking. Many of us here were appalled by Obama's war
crimes too, rodney. And most of us here are not "libs" but free and critically thinking human
beings, well apart from your Team Red/Team Blue baloney dichotomous way of seeing the
U.S.A.'s role in the world. Now, who doesn't "get it?" Why, I'd say that would be you!
With all due respect, sir Since there are a good number of Americans who've swallowed the
obvious psychological warfare "Operation Baghdadi" operation hook, line and sinker, featuring
a President of the United States effectively sharing with the American boys and girls a scary
bedtime story, – and drenched with a very poor actor's "tells" or giveaways – the
more accurate term might be "My circle jerk of friends ". We would strongly suggest sobering
up – before Phase 2 of this extremely dangerous fairy tale commences.
Peace.
Joe , October 29, 2019 at 18:35
Lot of folks were bit premature giving Trump some credit for pulling troops out of Syria.
The MIC waved a dollar sign in front of Trump and showed his true colors once again.
Noah Way , October 29, 2019 at 18:18
Just a continuation of oBOMBa's war crimes .The deep state / shadow government is in control.
Nick , October 30, 2019 at 10:35
Which were a continuation of Bush's war crimes, which were a continuation of Clinton's
which were a continuation of Bush's which were a continuation of Reagan's which were a
continuation of Carter's
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
"... This is really going to piss off the Deep State. All their plans initiated by Obama and Hillary are being destroyed by the red haired road runner known as Trump. ..."
"... If these reports are true of the oil tanker smuggling operation, then the Syrian Kurds do not have clean hands. ..."
"... Kind of sounds to me like Erdogan and Trump made a deal. ..."
"... Baghdadi wasn't the jihadis' only loss today. Abu-Hassan al-Muhajir, the likely successor to Baghdadi, was blown away near Jarabulus in a US strike. Here's a couple of tweets about these events: ..."
"... "Led by the 4th Armored Division, the Syrian Arab Army began their attack around 10 A.M. on Saturday, when their troops began to storm the Zuwayqat Mountain and its corresponding hills. Following a heavy battle that lasted for several hours, the Syrian Arab Army was able to take hold of the Zuwayqat Mountain, giving their forces fire control over the remaining hills south of Kabani. The Syrian Arab Army is now trying to push their way into Kabani; however, they are facing heavy resistance from the jihadist rebels of Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham and the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP)." ..."
What does a radical Islamic mother say to another radical Islamic mother? Children, they blow up so fast.
What a contrast with the raid that killed Bin Laden in May 2011. The Obama Administration came out with conflicting accounts and
required the SEALS who carried out the attack to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? Because the raid was conducted with the cooperation
and knowledge of the Pakistani government; the SEALS faced no guard force; Bin Laden was a cripple unable to get out of bed and was
shot so many times by the SEALs his body has to be dumped in the ocean.
Al Baghdadi? It is now clear he was protected by someone in Turkey. The Turks knew where he was and, until yesterday, kept him
safe. Trump's actions over the last three weeks with respect to U.S. forces in Syria set the table for this operation. A combination
of pressure and incentives confronted Turkey's President Erdogan and he rolled over.
It is telling that there was not a huge fire fight going in. Where was the Baghdadi security team? This is a further indicator
that Baghdadi was betrayed by folks he thought were protecting him. Baghdadi fled his house and jumped into a tunnel. Baghdadi is
reported to have blown himself up. Looks like the mission was carried out by Delta Force. They are accompanied by Malanois dogs (looks
a little like a German shepherd). Based on what Trump briefed today the dog followed Baghdadi down into the tunnel. The dog can run
faster than any soldier in such an environment. Once Baghdadi was trapped he detonated his suicide vest. Fortunately, the dog was
not killed (but probably suffered some frag wounds.)
(Someone needs to re-write the Peter and Gordon lyrics on "I Go to Pieces" in honor of Baghdadi's passing.)
Don't believe the media reports that the U.S. forces launched from Iraq. Just look at a map. Al Baghdadi was hiding out in Idlib
province, which is in northwest Syria. Flight time in helicopters from Iraq is three hours plus. Flight time from the U.S. Air Force
base in Incirlik, Turkey is about one hour. This came out of Turkey. That is why the U.S. coordinated/deconflicted the flight path
with Russia. Flying from Turkey into northwest Syria takes one directly over territory controlled by the Russians and Syrians.
Trump's press conference was amazing. He did not divulge key operational details and did a good job of obfuscating the intel sources
that provided the break on Al Baghdadi's location.
One thing is certain--most of the anti-Trump crowd will look for some reason to criticize Trump's victory. The anti-Trumper crowd
looks pretty stupid now. They were predicting the resurgence of ISIS. Whoops!! There goes that narrative. The new status quo in Syria
means the end of the U.S. policy of regime change and the beginning of the rehabilitation of Syria as a legitimate nation state.
This is really going to piss off the Deep State. All their plans initiated by Obama and Hillary are being destroyed by the red
haired road runner known as Trump.
But what about Trump's comments about keeping the oil, and protecting it with heavy fire power, and inviting in Exxon, etc. He
did say a deal might be possible.
Watch what he does, not what he says. He thinks while talking. This is a bad habit since he does not speak English well. I
am told that this is a characteristic of people from the Outer Boroughs of NY City.
Russia's defense ministry has no reliable
information about an operation by US forces in the Turkey-controlled part of the Idlib de-escalation zone aimed at another extermination
of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ministry's spokesman, Igor Konashenkov, said"
Artemesia
...I weep for my country that the way that its leader re-establishes his bona fides is by celebrating brutal murder, and many
Americans will celebrate that murder right along with him.
HillaryObama did the same thing; so did G H W Bush with the "precision bombing" of Iraq that became a thing of pride; the capture
of Saddam in his "spider hole;" Hillary's glee over the sodomized assassination of Qaddafi.
We have been inured to outrages to human beings, especially if they are "over there," and many who have become wealthy producers
of popular culture have played a major role in conditioning the American people to celebrate blood and gore in the name of American
Values.
Col. Lang -- Your post on Comments is at the back of my mind. I like to think I'm complying; that if I hated USA it would not
bother me that we are conditioned to celebrate killing. It does bother me. I don't think the killing of el Baghdadi is something
that enhances the moral stature of USA -- particularly when it is coupled, as it was in Trump's speech -- with the bold declaration
that US intends to steal Syria's oil.
"Real Men Go To Tehran."
Real Man James Jeffrey has been hot to bankrupt Syria for at least a year, his scheme to make reconstruction of Syria impossible
unless / until Syria ejects Iran & complies with the Borg's demands.
Erdogan's Islam views appears to be genuine. Rather than terrible Turk, Erdogan is strongly Islamic and taking Turkey from a secular
state back to and Islamic state. Turkey put off as long as possible declaring AQ a terrorist organization. AQ have no problems
having the Turk bases through Idlib.
Turkey was buying oil from ISIS earlier in the piece. There was some fighting when Erdogan
first moved his jihadis into Syria but large number of ISIS left Manbij once they had nutted out a deal.
Turk border in Idlib may well have been the safest place for Baghdadi to stay.
Baghdadi wasn't the jihadis' only loss today. Abu-Hassan al-Muhajir, the likely successor to Baghdadi, was blown away near
Jarabulus in a US strike. Here's a couple of tweets about these events:
"So SDF and Iraq shared intel with US on position of ISIS leader Baghdadi - 3.5 miles from border with Turkey. And SDF shared
intel with US on the position of ISIS spox Muhajir - just outside Turkish Euphrates Shield city of Jarablus. Doesn't look *great*
for Turkey, have to say"
We believe ISIS spox. Al-Muhajir was in Jarablus to facilitate Baghdadi's entry to Euphrates Shield area. The two US-led operations
have effectively disabled top ISIS leadership who were hiding [in] NW Syria. More still remain hiding in the same area."
The SAA did well at Kabani... if they can keep it this time. From Al Masdar:
"Led by the 4th Armored Division, the Syrian Arab Army began their attack around 10 A.M. on Saturday, when their troops
began to storm the Zuwayqat Mountain and its corresponding hills. Following a heavy battle that lasted for several hours, the
Syrian Arab Army was able to take hold of the Zuwayqat Mountain, giving their forces fire control over the remaining hills south
of Kabani. The Syrian Arab Army is now trying to push their way into Kabani; however, they are facing heavy resistance from the
jihadist rebels of Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham and the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP)."
Maybe with Baghdadi's ass now far from his head, perhaps the HTS and TIP will loose some of their enthusiasm for defending
Kabani. They have been tenacious.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
"... It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East. ..."
"... Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ..."
"... They've re-started the Cold War. Keeps all the warmongers in business. Surely they're not stupid enough to want a hot one are they? ..."
"... It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold. ..."
"... "Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them." ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
@Digital Samizdat Absolutely. Gabbard is the "Democrat" Trump. A Jew puppet presented as an outsider. They're exactly the
same. Even Obama was presented that way to an extent.
Yet the dumb goyim will fall for it for the third time in a row.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
@Ilyana_Rozumova The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
@MarathonMan Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds secure the oil for Israel. It's hard
to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave
Syria's Golan Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they want from him?
What do you mean Pelosi has no credibility? Have you checked her bank balance lately? Nancy, had she not waded into politics,
would have been a pole dancer she had the goods for it.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
When it comes to senior American politihoes, no one is ever right. Pelosi may be cultivating the ISIS, but Gabbard is busy blowing
assorted dictators and more closer to the heart, the hindoo nationalist queers, as impotent (I mean that in a literal sexual context,
as their elites don't marry) as they might be.
Tulsi needs to conduct herself with gravitas, because of her age. However, she is helped by the fact that the leader of the progressive
wing is a former bartender, and the leader of the environmental resistance is a high-school sophomore.
@MarathonMan It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
Lol! Deceitful lies from some godless/pagan whitrash.
If you are referring to some self-perceived notions of barbarity/deception/etc., within Islam, then you are a deceitful !@#
who is trying to cover up the sheer savagery/psychopathy/deception/hypocrisy/etc., of the Christoo whitrash race.
Again, as far as the roots of Islam being in Judaism, that is laughable. It is Christooism which is clearly having roots in
Judaism (there have been so many here who have quoted from your pagan scriptures about the haloed position of the Jooscum)
and Hindooism .
In-his-image mangods/womangods, Trinity/Trimurthi, the human body is the temple of god the list is long where you all share
your pagan theologies.
Islam utterly rejects all such pagan abominations. The following verses of the Holy Quran amply proves the simplest and purest
form of monotheism, that is Islam;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born , Nor is there to Him
any equivalent ."
@A123 "Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability."
Wrong.
The Oded Yinon Plan employs exactly this strategy, and along with the Neocon dominated State Dept with its Regime Change program
(Oded Yinon plan in stealth mode) is the predicate. Meanwhile, once it emerged, Obama & Kerry sought to preserve ISIS as a means
to pressure Assad. Neocon Zionist fifth column in the US, & Israel-behind-the-scenes are the dual agency-behind-the-curtain of
US regime-change wars ***EVERYWHERE*** (because they hate Russia, too.).
@DESERT FOX And rule, finally, over a smoldering wreck of a planet? They already rule most of it, they're at the Endgame of
their long match with the world. Not that they eschew violence and mass murder. Indeed, they got their start thousands years ago
by worshiping a god who told them to genocide all their neighbors and steal all their goods.
@really no shit I'm in the same age cohort as most of these shameless grifters, so I know the end of this run on earth is
drawing near. I know that no one can take whatever they accumulate in this life with them into oblivion or whatever their imagined
version of paradise might be. The loot stays here in this vale of tears.
ALL of these players busy ruining and ending lives, like Pelosi, the Clintons and the Bush family, are multi-millionaires at
the least–and all on the taxpayers' dime. Why do they desperately seek to add ever more cash to their bank accounts by bringing
yet more misery into the world? It won't be very long and either the collection of psychopaths known as the government of the
United States and its ruthless war machine will end up with the proceeds or they will pass down to further generations of these
congenital parasites and deadbeats.
Does Joe ask himself whether it was worthy to spend his wretched life accumulating ill-gotten wealth to pass on to Hunter and
his ilk? Or for Hillary to set up Chelsea and the next generation of Rodham Clinton lampreys? Jimmy Carter seems to have been
the only American president who didn't constantly grasp for money once out of office and the world never heard a peep about Amy
ever again.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members
of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S.
instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future
campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to
extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in
the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans
worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan
reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total
of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British
and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The
French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defence
which reveals the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that
they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR),
AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government
agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic
asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department
of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually
facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also
that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan
in 2012.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with its direct and indirect extensions
and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies
and plans, one after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability to control the progress
of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps
to expose the American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism, the characteristics
of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and international stock markets, and by the confusion
and powerlessness of the American economy. This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic
power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist
entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its hands, this project has witnessed great
development of the means of control and unprecedented subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments
in science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an economic political plan that
views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic of hegemony in particular, is their
basic belief that they own the world, and have the right to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western,
and especially American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has become a strategy
of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow discord, to destroy identities,
and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic, and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase,
when it was transformed into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest manifestation
of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The Bush administration has turned the
U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would
emerge as the most hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples politically, economically, and culturally,
and to plunder their resources.
– Hassan Nasrallah December 8, 2009
and Trump IS NOT "pulling out" Will Tulsi? One way to find out. Doesn't look good though, unless shes willing to splinter the
C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, as they say..
Where's the proof that she is CFR member, I see sock puppets parrot this line all the time but offer no proof. Her serving
on the armed & financial services committees and doing a speech for them doesn't make her a member. I'd take her over Trump any
day.
On one hand, you're totally right about the necessity of reducing the number of NATO members. On the other hand, the problem is
that without Turkey NATO will militarily become only a little more than a bilateral Franco-American agreement plus those 215 British
warheads.
The problem with Trump is he has no morals, values, and/or convictions. He does what he thinks will be the most popular and what
will make him LOOK NOT weak.
Motto for the USA: Whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine
Lemme know when Syria sends troops to support some group or to fight some group in the US won't you?
Let me know when Syria or any nation in the Middle East bombs American military bases in the US because they believe that the
US government mis-treated some group or area in the US.
Then let me know who the hell the US government and military think they are...
talking about Syria and Turkey as if it's any of you alls damn business-oh yeah, you're the good guys right? You preach to other
nations and cultures?
Have you any decency left, when you demand this or that from other nations?
After it was and is proven that, since 1945, the US has murdered more civilians around the world than any other nation? That the
US and it's fine 'civilized' military and agencies like the CIA tortured people in and from Iraq and other places in the MIddle
East?
And, what business is it of yours what religion Turkey has?
Is Turkey telling America what it must do on America's borders?
You arrogant hypocrites. Was it Moslem nations that did the terror in Russia starting in 1917? World War 1 and mustard gas and
so on?
World War 11 and that suffering? How about the US bombing northern Korea and Vietnam in the 50' and 60's? Over a million humans
slaughtered there!!
How would you feel if it was a close relative of yours that got blown apart by the fine US military in Iraq and Afghanistan or
in Syria?
I'll tell you 'know it's all' something which including the above article writer:
if true justice were to happen the US and NATO nations would be brought to trial for high crimes against humanity and trillions
of dollars in reparations paid to nations the US and NATO destroyed and those leaders such as Bush, HIllary Clinton, Condi Rice,
Obama and their neo-con owners would be jailed, at the very least. So, how about throw the US and NATO out of NATO? As in, disband
that criminal enterprise. NATO: a question why do you even exist?
You know, the politicians in D.C. don't care and the American people will never get it-what I mean from my words above. Dig?
Syria may be the biggest defeat for the CIA since Vietnam. ... (right click) ...
https://www.strategic-cultu... .... Trump strikes back at the CIA (deep state) and the CIA will be after his scalp till Kingdom
Come.
The real corruption in Ukraine started in February of 2014 (right click)
https://www.strategic-cultu... when Obama/Biden and ZioCON Communist Victoria Nuland "ILLEGALLY OVERTHREW" the Ukraine
Government and INSTALLED a corrupt illegal dictator handpicked by Obama and Nuland.
The real question is: Would we be here today if Obama/Biden had not taken part in an illegal overthrow of Ukraine? If you follow
actual events, the people of Crimea were so upset they voted, LAWFULLY, to return to Russia. The two Eastern regions of Ukraine
voted to join Russia too; but President Putin refused to accept them.
The vultures also descended on Ukraine to make a profit and Hunter Biden was one of them and an honest prosecutor started to
investigate, and Joe Biden blackmailed the "installed" President to fire him.
When the people of Ukraine got fed up with the "installed" President, they voted a COMEDIAN, who ran as a joke, into office.
Now the conspirators have a new ball game and, before this is over, the CORRUPTION will come out and impeachment will only speed
it up.
So, bring on the impeachment and let the truth come out as it should. Before this is over, this could be the Dimms last Rodeo
for a long, long time.
The failed coup against Erdogan marked a turn from Erdogan away from US and towards Russia. Might well be that Turkey didn't view
US a a "good ally" since that coup.
I agree. Turkey should be expelled but I think its not as easy as simple expulsion. I think its a matter of timing and justification
otherwise it will appear anti-muslim and we may need Turkey at some point in the future (and I think we are keeping that ace in
the hand just a little longer before playing it).
I suspect that it is time for the US to leave NATO.
Create a new alliance with Canada and Britain and let the continent create it's own alliance. They will be forced to use their
own money and
The devastation created in Syria by the USA and its allies who recruited and armed the ISIS fighters and "moderate islamists"
with weapons captured in Libya after fall of Libyan government and start of the civil war will be remembered for generations.
Obama and Hillary were key war criminals in this game.
But the gamble to remove Assad using Islamists as the driving force and then somehow deal with islamists failed.
Now the USA, Israel and KSA suffered a geopolitical defeat.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since 2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People's Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij. The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved. ..."
"... This is a Syria-Russia-Turkey win-win-win – and, inevitably, the end of a separatist-controlled Syrian Kurdistan. Significantly, Erdogan's spokesman Fahrettin Altun stressed Syria's "territorial integrity" and "political unity." That kind of rhetoric from Ankara was unheard of until quite recently. ..."
Russia-Turkey deal establishes 'safe zone' along Turkish border and there will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols
The negotiations in Sochi were long – over six hours – tense and tough. Two leaders in a room with their interpreters and several
senior Turkish ministers close by if advice was needed. The stakes were immense: a road map to pacify northeast Syria, finally.
The press conference afterwards was somewhat awkward – riffing on generalities. But there's no question that in the end Russian
President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan managed the near impossible.
The Russia-Turkey deal establishes a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border – something Erdogan had been gunning for since
2014. There will be joint Russia-Turkey military patrols. The Kurdish YPG (People's Protection Units), part of the rebranded, US-aligned
Syrian Democratic Forces, will need to retreat and even disband, especially in the stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn, and
they will have to abandon their much-cherished urban areas such as Kobane and Manbij. The Syrian Arab Army will be back in the whole
northeast. And Syrian territorial integrity – a Putin imperative – will be preserved.
This is a Syria-Russia-Turkey win-win-win – and, inevitably, the end of a separatist-controlled Syrian Kurdistan. Significantly,
Erdogan's spokesman Fahrettin Altun stressed Syria's "territorial integrity" and "political unity." That kind of rhetoric from Ankara
was unheard of until quite recently.
Putin immediately called Syrian President Bashar al Assad to detail the key points of the memorandum of understanding. Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov once again stressed Putin's main goal – Syrian territorial integrity – and the very hard work ahead to form
a Syrian Constitutional Committee for the legal path towards a still-elusive political settlement.
Russian military police and Syrian border guards are already arriving to monitor the imperative YPG withdrawal – all the way to
a depth of 30 kilometers from the Turkish border. The joint military patrols are tentatively scheduled to start next Tuesday.
On the same day this was happening in Sochi, Assad was visiting the frontline in Idlib – a de facto war zone that the Syrian army,
allied with Russian air power, will eventually clear of jihadi militias, many supported by Turkey until literally yesterday. That
graphically illustrates how Damascus, slowly but surely, is recovering sovereign territory after eight and a half years of war.
Who gets the oil?
For all the cliffhangers in Sochi, there was not a peep about an absolutely key element: who's in control of Syria's oilfields
, especially after President Trump's now-notorious tweet stating, "the US has secured the oil." No one knows which oil. If he meant
Syrian oil, that would be against international law. Not to mention Washington has no mandate – from the UN or anyone else – to occupy
Syrian territory.
The Arab street is inundated with videos of the not exactly glorious exit by US troops, leaving Syria pelted by rocks and rotten
tomatoes all the way to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they were greeted by a stark reminder. "All US forces that withdrew from Syria received
approval to enter the Kurdistan region [only] so that they may be transported outside Iraq. There is no permission granted for these
forces to stay inside Iraq," the Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad said.
The Pentagon said a
"residual force" may remain in the Middle Euphrates river valley, side by side with Syrian Democratic Forces militias, near a
few oilfields, to make sure the oil does not fall "into the hands of ISIS/Daesh or others." "Others" actually means the legitimate
owner, Damascus. There's no way the Syrian army will accept that, as it's now fully engaged in a national drive to recover the country's
sources of food, agriculture and energy. Syria's northern provinces have a wealth of water, hydropower dams, oil, gas and food.
As it stands, the US retreat is partial at best, also considering that a small garrison remains behind at al-Tanf, on the border
with Jordan. Strategically, that does not make sense, because the al-Qaem border between Iran and Iraq is now open and thriving.
Map: Energy Consulting Group
The map above shows the position of US bases in early October, but that's changing fast. The Syrian Army is already working to
recover oilfields around Raqqa, but the strategic US base of Ash Shaddadi still seems to be in place. Until quite recently US troops
were in control of Syria's largest oilfield, al-Omar, in the northeast.
There have been accusations by Russian sources that
mercenaries recruited by private US military companies trained jihadi militias such as the Maghawir al-Thawra ("Army of Free
Tribes") to sabotage Syrian oil and gas infrastructure and/or sell Syrian oil and gas to bribe tribal leaders and finance jihadi
operations. The Pentagon denies it.
Gas pipeline
As I have argued for years, Syria to a large extent has been a key '
Pipelineistan' war – not
only in terms of pipelines inside Syria, and the US preventing Damascus from commercializing its own natural resources, but most
of all around the fate of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline which was agreed in a memorandum of understanding signed in 2012.
This pipeline has, over the years, always been a red line, not only for Washington but also for Doha, Riyadh and Ankara.
The situation should dramatically change when the $200 billion-worth of reconstruction in Syria finally takes off after a comprehensive
peace deal is in place. It will be fascinating to watch the European Union – after NATO plotted for an "Assad must go" regime change
operation for years – wooing Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus with financial offers for their gas.
NATO explicitly supported the Turkish offensive "Operation Peace Spring." And we haven't even seen the ultimate geoeconomic irony
yet: NATO member, Turkey, purged of its neo-Ottoman dreams, merrily embracing the Gazprom-supported Iran-Iraq-Syria 'Pipelineistan'
road map .
NATO explicitly supported the Turkish offensive "Operation Peace Spring." And we haven't even seen the ultimate geoeconomic
irony yet: NATO member, Turkey, purged of its neo-Ottoman dreams, merrily embracing the Gazprom-supported Iran-Iraq-Syria
'Pipelineistan' road map .
except, I thought the EU and the US cut Erdogan off from military supplies?
Oct 14, 2019 - European leaders warn of ISIS revival with Turkish invasion of Syria ... condemned the Turkish
incursion and agreed on an informal, E.U. -wide ban on arms sales to Ankara. ... That is a
direct security threat to the European Union." AD ... who escape from Syrian prison camps could make their
way to France.
And, six hours isn't ****. The deal was cut long before that meeting. Funny Assad wasn't there -- it's his country. Or is it?
given that he couldn't resupply his army, what choice did he have?
...oh to be rid of this vipers nest of **** bought to you by George Sr and Jnr, Obamawambachamawamba and of course Killary
and Co along with quite a few Repub. necons...
I worked in Syria before all this **** went down and I can tell you it was thriving and probably the best exemplar in the mid
east; I hope they get back to where they should never have been torn down from...
Trump is the one that deserves the credit here, no one else...
Read the entire crap all through again as well as anything that is published in the Saker blog. While they feign sympathy for
Syria (with oodles of Zionist plots to get the reader emotionally-activated), their true intent is to promote Turkey's interests.
There is hardly any mention of Turkey's role in the genocide in Syria, and the sex-slave and organ trafficking markets it had
facilitated. Turkey appears white as snow and anything bad can be blamed on an exiled Gulen.
Who is threatening to flood White Europe with millions Muslim refugees...? ...
"... Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart. After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their exit. ..."
"... At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is unknown. ..."
"... For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to the policy of FUKUSing Syria. ..."
"... This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact -- saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics. ..."
"... During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy. ..."
"... The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that 200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is threaten to blow up the world. ..."
"... Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer, but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police and the military to protect them. ..."
"... Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador, Peru, etc ..."
"... Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds? ..."
"... Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success. During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and banks. ..."
"... It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore.. representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it. ..."
"... Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria. ..."
"... He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress. ..."
"... The Great Trumpian Mystery. I don't pretend to understand but I'm intrigued by his inconsistent inconsistencies. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/17/trump-mysteries-inconsistent-inconsistencies/ ..."
"... It probably should come as no surprise to us that Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a platform of change. ..."
"... Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen. At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy-- turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests. ..."
"... Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist. ..."
"... IMO Trump cares about what Sheldon Adelson wants and Adelson wants to destroy Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc Note the audience applause ..."
"... The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking points without understanding any of it. ..."
"... "This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist." I think TTG speaks the truth. ..."
"... On Monday, 21 October, president Trump "authorized $4.5 million in direct support to the Syria Civil Defense (SCD)", a/k/a the White Helmets, who have been discussed here on SST before-- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-89/ ..."
"... TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them. ..."
"... ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that seriously. ..."
"... That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again, is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our abandonment of the Kurds ..."
"... the controversy has gotten as big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism. Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment nervous. ..."
"... we created the problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power. ..."
"... He let them roll him, just like Obama and so many others. Just a different set of rollers. ..."
"Joltin" Jack Keane, General (ret.), Fox Business Senior Strategery Analyst, Chairman of the
Board of the Kagan run neocon "Institute for the Study of War" (ISW) and Graduate
Extraordinaire of Fordham University, was on with Lou Dobbs last night. Dobbs appears to have
developed a deep suspicion of this paladin. He stood up to Keane remarkably well. This was
refreshing in light of the fawning deference paid to Keane by all the rest of the Fox crew.
In the course of this dialogue Keane let slip the slightly disguised truth that he and the
other warmongers want to keep something like 200 US soldiers and airmen in Syria east of the
Euphrates so that they can keep Iran or any other "Iranian proxy forces" from crossing the
Euphrates from SAG controlled territory to take control of Syrian sovereign territory and the
oil and gas deposits that are rightly the property of the Syrian people and their government
owned oil company. The map above shows how many of these resources are east of the Euphrates.
Pilgrims! It is not a lot of oil and gas judged by global needs and markets, but to Syria and
its prospects for reconstruction it is a hell of a lot!
Keane was clear that what he means by "Iranian proxy forces" is the Syrian Arab Army, the
national army of that country. If they dare cross the river, to rest in the shade of their own
palm trees, then in his opinion the air forces of FUKUS should attack them and any 3rd party
air forces (Russia) who support them
This morning, on said Fox Business News with Charles Payne, Keane was even clearer and
stated specifically that if "Syria" tries to cross the river they must be fought.
IMO he and Lindsey Graham are raving lunatics brainwashed for years with the Iran obsession
and they are a danger to us all. pl
If only General Keane was as willing to defend America and America's oil on the Texas-Mexico
border. Or hasn't anyone noticed that Mexico just a lost a battle with the Sinaloa drug
cartel?
I view them as selling their Soul for a dollar. Keane comes across as dense enough to believe
his bile but Graham comes across as an opportunist without any real ideology except power.
Its probably one step at a time for the Syrians, although the sudden move over the past
couple of weeks must have been a bit of a God given opportunity for them.
Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart.
After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I
can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their
exit.
As I posted in the other thread, the Syrian Government is the only real customer for their
oil and the Kurds already have a profit share agreement in place, so the US, if they allow
any oil out, will effectively be protecting the fields on behalf of Assad. Surely not what
Congress wants?
At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a
steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is
unknown.
I think this might be President Putin's next problem to solve. As far as I know, there is no
legal reason for us to be there, not humanitarian, not strategic not even tactical. We simply
are playing dog-in-the-manger.
My guess is that we will receive an offer to good to refuse from Putin.
For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny
relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the
SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore
social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to
the policy of FUKUSing Syria.
Why is the Champs Elise' Regime still committed to putting the F in UKUS?
(I can understand why UKUS would want to keep France involved. Without France, certain nasty
people might re-brand UKUS as USUK. And that would be very not nice.)
Because France wants to be on the good side of the United States, and as you indicate, the
United States is in Syria to turn that country into a failed state and for no other reason.
A good antidote for Joltin' Jack Keane's madness would be for Lou Dobbs and other mainstream
media (MSM) to have Col Pat Lang as the commentator for analysis of the Syrian situation.
Readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that Col. Lang's knowledge of the peoples of the
region and their customs is a national treasure.
This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning
of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut
instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact --
saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane,
Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where
they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics.
In WWI millions of soldiers died fighting for imperial designs. They did not know it. They
thought they were fighting for democracy, or to stop the spread of evil, or save their
country. They were not. Secret treaties signed before the war started stated explicitly what
the war was about.
Now "representatives" of the military, up to and including the Commander in Chief say it's
about conquest, oil. The cards of the elite are on the table. How do you account for this?
During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when
asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy.
The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that
200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or
keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is
threaten to blow up the world.
Justin Trudeau was elected Monday in Canada with a minority in Parliament joining the
United Kingdom and Israel with governments without a majority's mandate. Donald Trump's
impeachment escalates. MbS is nearing a meat hook in Saudi Arabia. This is not a coincidence.
The Elites' flushing government down the drain succeeded.
Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer,
but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police
and the military to protect them. Already California electricity is being cut off for a
second time due to wildfires and PG&E's corporate looting. The Sinaloa shootout reminds
me of the firefight in the first season of "True Detectives" when the outgunned LA cops tried
to go after the Cartel. The writing is on the wall, California is next. Who will the lawmen
serve and protect? Their people or the rich? Without the law, justice and order, there is
chaos.
Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural
plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador,
Peru, etc
No doubt that Keane and his ilk want endless war and view Trump as a growing obstacle. Trump
is consistent: He wanted out of JCPOA, and after being stalled by his national security
advisors, he finally reached the boiling point and left. The advisors who counseled against
this are all gone. With Pompeo, Enders and O'Brien as the new key security advisors, I doubt
Trump got as much push back. He wanted out of Syria in December 2018 and was slow-walked.
Didn't anyone think he'd come back at some point and revive the order to pull out? The talk
with Erdogan, the continuing Trump view that Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia
should bear the burden of sorting out what is left of the Syria war, so long as ISIS does not
see a revival, all have been clear for a long time.
My concern is with Lindsey Graham, who is smarter and nastier than Jack Keane. He is also
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and may hold some blackmail leverage over the
President. If the House votes up impeachment articles, Graham will be overseeing the Senate
trial. A break from Trump by Graham could lead to a GOP Senate stampede for conviction. No
one will say this openly, as I am, but it cannot be ignored as a factor for "controlling"
Trump and keeping as much of the permanent war machine running as possible.
Trump has committed the United States to a long war against the Shia Crescent. He has ceded
to Turkey on Syrian Kurds, but has continued with his operations against SAR. US needs
Turkey, Erdogan knows that. Likewise in regards to Russia, EU, and Iran. Turkey, as is said
in Persian, has grown a tail.
Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has
released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds?
Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE
pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success.
During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of
curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and
banks.
It was also reported in September that in Dubai that recent US Treasury sanctions were
beginning to have a devastating effect. Iranian businessmen were being squeezed out. Even
leaving the Emirates. Yet only a few days ago--a month later-- there are now reports that
Iranian exchange bureaus have suddenly reopened in Dubai after a long period of closure.
Also, billions of dollars in contracts were signed between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
during Putin's recent visit to the region. It seems to me that this is real news. Something
big seems to be happening. It looks to me as if there could be a serious confrontation
between the Trump administration and MBZ in the offing.
Do you have an opinion on the Iranian situation in Dubai at the moment?
I have my doubt that Sen. Graham will lead any revolt, but if it starts to look like Trump
will lose big next year, there will be a stampede looking like the Nile getting through a
cataract.
They will not want to go down the tube with Trump. I still maintain that there is a good
reason for him to resign before he loses an election or an impeachment. It will come down to
the price.
Lose big to whom in the next election? Biden got 300 people to show up for his rally in his hometown of Scranton and he is
supposedly the front runner. Bernie got 20,000 to show up at his rally in NY when he was
endorsed by The Squad and Michael Moore. Do you think the Dem establishment will allow him to
be the nominee?
Trump in contrast routinely can fill up stadiums with 30,000 people. That was the
indicator in the last election, not the polls. Recall the NY Times forecasting Hillary with a
95% probability of winning the day before the election.
As Rep. Al Green noted , the only way the Democrats can stop him is for the Senate to
convict him in an impeachment trial. Who do you believe are the 20 Republican senators that
will vote to convict?
Trump barely won the last time and while he currently has wide support in the GOP, it is not
nearly as deep as his cultists believe. When half the country, and growing, want him removed,
there is trouble ahead. Republicans are largely herd animals and if spooked, will create a
stampede.
You can tell that there are problems when his congressional enablers are not defending him
on facts and just using gripes about processes that they themselves have used in the past. In
addition to circus acts.
I realize that many do not want to admit that they made a mistake by voting for him. I am
not so sure they want to repeat that mistake.
It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the
compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore..
representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it.
It's not a question if he barely won. The fact is he competed with many other Republican
candidates including governors and senators and even one with the name Bush. He was 1% in the
polls in the summer of 2016 and went on to win the Republican nomination despite the intense
opposition of the Republican establishment. He then goes on to win the general election
defeating a well funded Hillary with all her credentials and the full backing of the vast
majority of the media. That is an amazing achievement for someone running for public office
for the first time. Like him or hate him, you have to give credit where it's due. Winning an
election for the presidency is no small feat.
There only two ways to defeat him. First, the Senate convicts him in an impeachment trial
which will require at least 20 Republican senators. Who are they? Second, a Democrat in the
general election. Who? I can see Bernie with a possibility since he has enthusiastic
supporters. But will the Democrat establishment allow him to win the nomination?
We're no longer having to listen to Yosemite Sam Bolton. His BFF Graham is left to fight on
his own. I don't think Trump feels the need to pay that much attention to Graham. He didn't
worry about him during the primary when Graham always seemed to be on the verge of crying
when he was asked questions.
Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies
so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and
failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria.
He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he
simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress.
What the Colonel calls the Borg is akin to an aircraft carrier that has been steaming at near
flank speed for many years too long, gathering mass and momentum since the end of Cold War I.
With the exception of Gulf War I, none of our interventions have gone well, and even the
putative peace at the end of GUlf War I wasn't managed well because it eventuated in Gulf War
Ii which has been worst than a disaster because the disaster taught the Borg nothing and
became midwife to additional disasters.
It probably should come as no surprise to us that
Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many
deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive
to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a
platform of change.
Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen.
At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy--
turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the
dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard
against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual
interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying
degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests.
With that said, I doubt very much whether the Republicans in the Senate will abandon Trump in
an impeachment trial. Trump's argument that the process is a political coup is arguably
completely true, or certainly true enough that his political base in the electorate will not
tolerate his abandonment by Republican politicians inside the Beltway. I think there is even
some chance that Trump, were he to be removed from office by what could be credibly portrayed
as a political coup, would consider running in 2020 as an independent. The damage that would
cause to the Republican Party would be severe, pervasive, and possibly fatal to the Party as
such. I doubt Beltway pols would be willing to take that chance.
I don't think Keane or Trump are focused on the oil. Keane just used that as a lens to focus
Trump on Iran. That's the true sickness. Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity
towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see
beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia
Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This
administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist.
And in response, Russia killed and captured hundreds of US Special forces and PMC's alongside
SAS in East Ghouta . It is said that the abrupt russian op on East Ghouta was a response to
the Battle of Khasham.
The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media
is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the
MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them
distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of
affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking
points without understanding any of it.
While it will always be mystifying to me why so many people on the street blindly support
America fighting and dying in the middle east, the support of the MSM and the paid hacks for
eternal war is no surprise. I hope they get to send their children and grandchildren to these
wars. More than that, I hope we get out of these wars. Trump might be able to put an end to
it, and not just in Syria, if he wins a second term, which he will if he is allowed to
contest the next election. There is however a chance that the borg will pull the rug from
under him and bar him from the elections. Hope that doesn't come to pass.
No, they just have to sit there and be an excuse to fly Coalition CAPs that would effectively
prevent SAA from crossing the Euphrates in strength. Feasible until the SAA finishes with
Idlib and moves some of its new Russian anti-aircraft toys down to Deir Ezzor.
TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the
permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless
covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them.
Colonel Lang, I am well aware of the power seekers who gravitate towards Trump or whoever
holds power not out of loyalty, but because they covet access to power. The neocons and
Zionists flock to Trump because they can manipulate him to do their bidding. That fact
certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Trump as President. The man needs help.
you are an experienced clan case officer. You do not know that most people are more than a
little mad? Hillary is more than a little nuts. Obama was so desperately neurotically in need
of White approval that he let the WP COIN generals talk him into a COIN war in Afghanistan. I
was part of that discussion. All that mattered to him was their approval. FDR could not be
trusted with SIGINT product and so Marshall never gave him any, etc., George Bush 41 told me
that he deliberately mis-pronounced Saddam's name to hurt his feelings. Georgie Junior let
the lunatic neocons invade a country that had not attacked us. Trump is no worse than many of
our politicians, or politicians anywhere. Britain? The Brexit disaster speaks for itself, And
then there is the British monarchy in which a princeling devastated by the sure DNA proof
that he is illegitimate is acting like a fool. The list is endless.
CK, the people surrounding Trump are largely appointees. Keane doesn't have to be let into
the WH. His problem is that those who would appeal to his non-neocon tendencies are not
people he wants to have around him. Gabbard, for instance, would be perfect for helping Trump
get ourselves out of the ME, is a progressive. Non-interventionists are hard to come by.
Those who he does surround himself with are using him for their own ideologies, mostly neocon
and Zionist.
Bacevich interview:
> Andrew Bacevich, can you respond to President Trump pulling the U.S. troops away from
this area of northern Syria, though saying he will keep them to guard oil fields?
> ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at
any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that
you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are
going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens
back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is
a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that
seriously.
> That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again,
is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy
or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And
here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our
abandonment of the Kurds.
> Let's stipulate. U.S. abandonment of the Kurds was wrong, it was callous, it was
immoral. It was not the first betrayal by the United States in our history, but the fact that
there were others certainly doesn't excuse this one. But apart from those concerned about the
humanitarian aspect of this crisis -- and not for a second do I question the sincerity of
people who are worried about the Kurds -- it seems to me that the controversy has gotten as
big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are
concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of
U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of
bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism.
Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen
to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a
fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment
nervous.
> NERMEEN SHAIKH: As you mentioned, Professor Bacevich, Trump has come under bipartisan
criticism for this decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria. Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell was one of the many Republicans to criticize Trump for his decision. In an
opinion piece in The Washington Post McConnell writes, quote, "We saw humanitarian disaster
and a terrorist free-for-all after we abandoned Afghanistan in the 1990s, laying the
groundwork for 9/11. We saw the Islamic State flourish in Iraq after President Barack Obama's
retreat. We will see these things anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners
and retreat from these conflicts before they are won." He also writes, quote, "As
neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more
talk of 'endless wars.' But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars
are won or lost." So Professor Bacevich, could you respond to that, and how accurate you
think an assessment of that is? Both what he says about Afghanistan and what is likely to
happen now with U.S. withdrawal.
> ANDREW BACEVICH: I think in any discussion of our wars, ongoing wars, it is important to
set them in some broader historical context than Senator McConnell will probably entertain. I
mean, to a very great extent -- not entirely, but to a very great extent -- we created the
problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power.
> People like McConnell, and I think other members of the political establishment, even
members of the mainstream media -- _The New York Times_, The Washington Post -- have yet to
reckon with the catastrophic consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq back in 2003. And if
you focus your attention at that start point -- you could choose another start point, but if
you focus your attention at that start point, then it seems to me that leads you to a
different conclusion about the crisis that we are dealing with right now. That is to say,
people like McConnell want to stay the course. They want to maintain the U.S. presence in
Syria. U.S. military presence. But if we look at what the U.S. military presence in that
region, not simply Syria, has produced over the course of almost two decades, then you have
to ask yourself, how is it that we think that simply staying the course is going to produce
any more positive results?
> It is appalling what Turkey has done to Syrian Kurds and the casualties they have
inflicted and the number of people that have been displaced. But guess what? The casualties
that we inflicted and the number of people that we displaced far outnumbers what Turkey has
done over the last week or so. So I think that we need to push back against this tendency to
oversimplify the circumstance, because oversimplifying the circumstance doesn't help us fully
appreciate the causes of this mess that we're in.
In addition to oil from Iran, Assad also gets oil from the SDF and the Kurds. Supposedly a
profit sharing arrangement as commented on by JohninMK in a previous post.
This oil sharing deal was also mentioned by Global Research and Southfront back in June of
2018:
Colonel Lang, the only way to "overthrow" Trump is through impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate. That is a Constitutional process, not a coup. The process is
intentionally difficult. Was the impeachment of Clinton an attempted coup?
In the first place isn't the dissolution of Ukraine and Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen
exactly what we have wished to achieve, and wouldn't an intelligent observer, such as
Vladimir Putin, want to do exactly the same thing to us, and hasn't he come very close to
witnessing the achievement of this aim whether he is personally involved or not? What goes
around comes around?
But that is relatively unimportant compared to the question whether dissolution of the
Union is a bad thing or a good thing. Preserving it cost 600,000 lives the first time. One
additional life would be one additional life too many. Ukraine is an excellent example.
Western Ukraine has a long history support for Nazi's. Eastern Ukraine is Russian. Must a war
be fought to bring them together? Or should they be permitted to go their separate ways?
As Hector said of Helen of Troy, "She is not worth what she doth cost the keeping."
After hanging up from a call to Putin, thanking him for Russia's help with the Turks, YPG
leader Mazloum Kobane returned to the Senate hearings in which he alternately reminded his
flecless American allies of their failure, not only to protect Rojava from the Turks, but
didn't even give them a heads up about what was about to happen and begged an already angry
[at Trump] Senate about their urgent need for a continued American presence in the territory.
It seems that some in the USG do not understand that all the land on the east bank of the
Euphrates is "Rojava" or somehow is the mandate of the Kurds to continue to control. For a
long time, now, the mainly Arab population of that region have been chafing under what is
actually Kurdish rule. This could be a a trigger for ISIS or some other jihadis to launch
another insurgency, or at the least, low level attacks, especially in Rojava to the
north.
To remind, the USG is not using military personnel, but also contracts, about 200 troops in
one field and 400 contractors in the other.
There is video of the SAA escorting the Americans to the Iraqi border. PM Abdel Hadi has
reiterated that the US cannot keep these troops in Iraq, as they go beyond the agreed upon
number. It is quite likely that the anti-Iranian aspect of the border region is NOT something
they wish to see.
"Iranian proxies" refers to Hezbollah, the various Shia militia groups from Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and of course, others, not the SAA.
"... we are talking about a man who launched 60+ Tomahawks over chocolate cake, with no investigation on a false flag gas attack, has reopened a war on Iran and is currently sanctioning Syria, Russia, Venezuela and many more to a level never seen before, sold anti tank missiles to Ukraine and made the KSA his first official overseas visit. ..."
"... Trump set up Gen. Flynn (who would have implemented his campaign promises) and unceremoniously fired him for the crime of doing his job. Then Trump put a bunch of neocons in charge and cleansed the NSC of any staff critical of the neocon agenda. Trump has filled his administration with disgusting swamp creatures and essentially put a simpleton son-in-law in charge of middle east policy. This is a complete disaster and b is way off base. His policy on Israel has been a nightmare, as has the policy on KSA. ..."
"... I think a civilizational winter is settling in on the Global North, while a thaw is on the verge of breaking out in the Global South. ..."
... many of his subordinates have tried to subvert his policies.
Wait ... what?
Those 'subordinates' work for Trump. Trump could easily prevent the subverting of
his policies - if he chose to.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Wasn't it Trump that tweeted that he was "locked and loaded" for war with Iran?
Wasn't it Trump that ordered TWO missile strikes on Syria based on false pretenses?
Wasn't it Trump that fully supported the Venezuela coup? And approved of illegally seizing
Venezuelan assets?
Wasn't it Trump that violated UN Resolutions by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and
recognizing Golan Heights as Israeli territory? All while drastically curtailing aid to the
Palestinians?
Wasn't it Trump that militarized Space? (He seems rather proud of doing so.)
Furthermore, I don't hear Trump complaining about things like USA not following thru on
commitments made for peace in Korea or USA's terminating the INF Treaty.
Trump was better at governing his TV show than running his government. Certainly, his
irresponsible choices for his chief aides carry much blame, but so does his
inability/unwillingness/false promise to drain the swamp of all the saboteurs--just look at
the Justice Department for a graphic example. But Trump's mismanagement was exacerbated by
his totally different conception of the Outlaw US Empire and how it would go about its
business--views that were diametrically opposite of those indoctrinated into the career
bureaucrats that would be charged with carrying out policy--when you've been told it's fine
and dandy to ignore and break as many laws and treaties as needed to implement policy, it
becomes second nature to ignore and work against policy directives that go against your
indoctrination. One major point Trump was correct about was the a priori need to Drain the
Swamp of the creatures that brought about all the ill-fated policies he now wanted to unwind
and abandon--the most important singular point he hasn't really tried to accomplish. Instead,
one of the first places he visited after his inauguration was CIA headquarters--Downtown
Swampland HQ.
I included and linked to
this article earlier today, "Trump's Foreign Policy Strategy Is All About the 2020
Elections." Lets assume that assumption is 100% correct; what does that leave post-election
when there's no further election to attempt to win? If all troops are removed from Syria,
Iraq and Afghanistan, what else will occur? Continued withdrawal from the Persian Gulf as
Iran's HOPE project swings into action? Withdrawal from Korea? Closing Gitmo? I haven't heard
Trump say anything about potential domestic or foreign second term policy. The D-Party's
candidates have proposed lots of domestic policy changes, some greatly needed and desired by
the public; but aside from Gabbard, little's been said about foreign policy.
Let's back away from the chalk board and its maps to look at the entire globe and do a
quick review of Trump's global policy.
His Trade War multiple tariff impositions were aimed at numerous nations, not just China,
all aimed at enhancing the MAGA domestic policy. The so-called Freedom of Navigation
provocation remains in place despite the USN botching it so badly. Somewhat reinvigorated
imperialism South of the border, particularly with the targeting of Venezuela and revamping
the Cuban Embargo. Renegotiation of NAFTA and dropping of all other pending Neoliberal trade
pacts. Illegal withdrawal from JCPOA, but withdrawal of troops from Syria and perhaps beyond.
Continued support for Saudi and UAE aggression against Yemen, which Ansarallah calls US-Saudi
aggression and terrorism. Included in all the above are numerous war crimes and other crimes
against humanity either originated or exacerbated by Trump. Those saying Trump hasn't begun a
war are 100% liars. But what was perhaps the most curious was his rant at the UNGA where he
declared war against Globalists and promoted Patriots. And although the ice was broken in the
frozen relations with DPRK, nothing positive has ensued.
In some ways we see continuity with the ongoing Outlaw US Empire policy to gain Full
Spectrum Dominance, but in other ways there're distinctive breaks with that policy. It
appears Trump wants to rollback US Imperialism to the Western Hemisphere in an effort to MAGA
as the Globalist's drive is a massive drain on US wealth and prestige. Do recall his loud but
very brief threat to attack all US-based companies that didn't repatriate their overseas
factories. As Trump's continuing Imperialism South of the Border proves, he's no
isolationist; and as his requests for additional military funding show, he's no pacifist
either. And to-date, his war fighting is limited to all forms of hybrid warfare, his only
kinetic actions being war crimes against Syria.
So, where will Trump go from here? Will he make any additional foreign policy related
campaign promises; and if so, what might they be? And as we've seen, there's a big push on to
replace the Dollar as the primary commercial currency with Trump so far being silent about
that. Does Trump even care about the international status of the Dollar or its importance to
the domestic economic situation, or is he totally ignorant?
Hmmm, i am not sure what to think of this analysis. On the one hand, Trump has said many
things, so who knows what he really wants. On the other, we are talking about a man who
launched 60+ Tomahawks over chocolate cake, with no investigation on a false flag gas attack,
has reopened a war on Iran and is currently sanctioning Syria, Russia, Venezuela and many
more to a level never seen before, sold anti tank missiles to Ukraine and made the KSA his
first official overseas visit.
In other words, not much of a peace maker. So while he may talk about bringing troops
home, one wonders how much of it is really just for show. His incompetence is well
established, but as others also mentioned, if one really wanted peace, then Pompeo, Bolton
and Haley are not really the people to be surrounded with. There are plenty of Republicans
from former senior Pentagon's Col. Wilkerson to Senators like Rand Paul who would have been
both fit for the job and willing to enable such policies, so forgive my skepticism, Trump the
peacemaker he is not, as for honouring any promises, never trust a salesman especially a
proven liar like Trump.
Trump set up Gen. Flynn (who would have implemented his campaign promises) and
unceremoniously fired him for the crime of doing his job. Then Trump put a bunch of neocons
in charge and cleansed the NSC of any staff critical of the neocon agenda. Trump has filled
his administration with disgusting swamp creatures and essentially put a simpleton son-in-law
in charge of middle east policy. This is a complete disaster and b is way off base. His
policy on Israel has been a nightmare, as has the policy on KSA.
WSWS reports that "Kramp-Karrenbauer called for a massive European Union (EU) force to occupy
northern Syria, sup..." and "Imperialist circles in both America and Europe are outraged at
the military and financial advantages that could accrue to Russia, Iran and China from their
defeat in Syria."
Well, contrary to Trump, who has specialized on making money playing the boss, the
establishment have some knowledge of what Trump is talking about.
Like leaving some isolated US troops in the desert "protecting oil fields". Trump
presumably has a very hazy idea that Syria and Turkey are countries. If you cannot take the
boss seriously you look out for yourself.
US establishment is capable of withdrawing when needed, see Vietnam, and I guess the
decision was not Trump's. Nor did I notice that Trump's zionist backers mentioned anything
about it. Nor do I believe that anyone in US establishment has the slightest interest in
protecting Rojava.
juliania @89 said: "We northerners have a winter ahead of us, but way down south it is
already spring."
Am I the only one who read that thinking of the Global North/Global South metaphor?
Probably not, and I have to say it is a surprisingly concise but deep observation juliania
makes. I think a civilizational winter is settling in on the Global North, while a thaw is
on the verge of breaking out in the Global South.
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
"... Clearly, the US hopes wrench Turkey from the Russian embrace. Moscow's studied indifference toward the US-Turkish cogitations betrays its uneasiness. Conceivably, Erdogan will expect Putin to take a holistic view, considering Russia's flourishing and high lucrative economic and military ties with Turkey and the imperative to preserve the momentum of Russia-Turkey relationship. ..."
"... If the US policy in Syria in recent years promoted the Kurdish identity, it has now swung to the other extreme of stoking the fires of Turkish revanchism. This is potentially catastrophic for regional stability. ..."
"... the main outcome will be that Turkey feels it has western support for its long-term occupation of Syrian territory. ..."
"... Arguably, US expects Turkey's cooperation to strengthen its strategy in Syria (and Iraq) where it seeks to contain Iran's influence. From Ankara, Pompeo travelled to Jerusalem to brief Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. " ..."
Now, [..] the sense of betrayal among the Kurds [..] is matched only by their outrage at who
will move in: Turkish soldiers supported by Syrian fighters the United States had long
rejected as extremists, criminals and thugs .
...
The deadly battles [..] have also given new leeway to Syrian fighters once considered too
extreme or unruly to receive American military support.
...
Grandly misnamed the Syrian National Army, this coalition of Turkish-backed militias is in
fact largely composed of the dregs of the eight-year-old conflict's failed rebel movement.
Early in the war [..] the military and the C.I.A. sought to train and equip moderate,
trustworthy rebels to fight the government and the Islamic State.
A few of those now fighting in the northeast took part in those failed programs, but most
were rejected as too extreme or too criminal . Some have expressed extremist sensibilities or
allied with jihadist groups.
The reality is the opposite of what the NYT claims. The majority of the groups now
fighting with the Turkish army had earlier received support from the U.S. Even their nominal
leader is the same one who the U.S. earlier paid, armed and promoted.
On August 31, the Syrian National Coalition came together and elected the president and the
cabinet of the Syrian Interim Government in which Abdurrahman Mustafa was elected president
and Salim Idriss was elected defense minister . With the new cabinet, the Syrian Interim
Government became more active on the ground, started visiting each faction of the National
Army, and accelerated the stalled negotiations to unite the National Army and the NLF under
one command.
Among the 41 factions that joined the merger, 15 are from the NLF and 26 from the National
Army. Thirteen of these factions were formed after the United States cut its support to the
armed Syrian opposition. Out of the 28 factions, 21 were previously supported by the United
States , three of them via the Pentagon's program to combat DAESH. Eighteen of these factions
were supplied by the CIA via the MOM Operations Room in Turkey, a joint intelligence
operation room of the 'Friends of Syria' to support the armed opposition. Fourteen factions
of the 28 were also recipients of the U.S.-supplied TOW anti-tank guided missiles.
The SETA study provides a detailed list of the groups involved in the current Turkish
invasion of Syria. Not only is their commander Salim Idriss a former U.S. stooge but the
majority of these groups did receive U.S. support and weapons.
The New York Times claim that only "a few of those" who now fight the YPG Kurds
took part in the U.S. programs is a blatant lie.
The NYT piece quotes three 'experts' who testify that the 'rebels' the U.S. had
armed are really, really bad:
"These are the misfits of the conflict, the worst of the worst," said Hassan Hassan, a
Syrian-born scholar tracking the fighting. "They have been notorious for extortion, theft and
banditry, more like thugs than rebels -- essentially mercenaries."
It was Hassan Hassan who since the start of the conflict lobbied for
arming the rebels from his perch at the UAE's media flagship The National .
Another 'expert' quoted is the Israeli propagandist Elizabeth Tsurkov:
"They are basically gangsters, but they are also racist toward Kurds and other minorities,"
said Elizabeth Tsurkov, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. "No human should
be subjected to their rule."
Tsurkov earlier
lauded the Israeli hiring and arming of the very same 'Syrian rebels'.
Another 'expert' quoted by the Times is a co-chair of the 'congressionally
sponsored bipartisan Syrian Study Group':
"We are turning areas that had been controlled by our allies over to the control of criminals
or thugs, or that in some cases groups were associated or fighting alongside Al Qaeda," said
Ms. Stroul, of the Syrian Study Group. "It is a profound and epic strategic blunder."
The 'Syrian Study Group' wants to prolong the war on Syria. Ms.
Stroul and her co-chair Michael Singh reside at the Washington
Institute which is a part of the Zionist lobby and has long
argued for 'arming the Syrian rebels'.
The Times report does not mention that the 'experts' it quotes all once lobbied for
arming the very same groups they are now lamenting about. When these groups ran rampant in the
areas they took from the Syrian government the Times and its 'experts' were lauding
them all the way. No effort to support them was big enough. All crimes they committed were
covered up or excused.
Now, as the very same rebels attack the Kurds, they are suddenly called out for being what
they always have been.
Posted by b on October 20, 2019 at 11:19 UTC |
Permalink
Hah! More lies from the NYT....mainstream media in the west has deteriorated into a
propaganda channel for the Military Industrial Complex and the oligarchy, pumping out a never
ending tide of lying filth aimed at more and more war (more and more weapon sales) and
promoting and preserving predatory capitalism (more money for the Billionaire class, less for
you).
In my own reading of MSM press and my own watching of the MSM Talking Heads I believe I've
indentified 8 techniques that amoral, dangerous, barely competent idiots that have the cheek
to call themselves journalists use to lie to you, the reader/viewer/listener. Here's my
list...
Okay how practical.
Now only is the NYT trying to whitewash themselves by faking, they are also kind enough to do
the same for their Jihadi lovin partners in crime.
How empathic! How sensible! Like a true moral authority.
BTW: It seems my previous claims were right. The Turks made a 180 and allied with the US
again, reviving the NATO allaince. Now that the Kurds are out of the way in Turk-US
relations, US and NATO has much more to offer than Russia, and noe Erdogan has support from
NATO and will not be deterred by Putin.
B, i respect you immensly, but your belief the Turkish invasion was Erdogan doing some secret
Putin plan was unproven at the time, and now, AT LEAST since the US-Turk deal, is
obsolte.
Read M. K. BHADRAKUMARs blog, he thought like you, but after the US-Turk deal, EVERYTHING
HAS CHANGED:
"The extraordinary US overture to Turkey regarding northern Syria resulted in a joint
statement on Thursday, whose ramifications can be rated only in the fulness of time , as
several intersecting tracks are running.
The US objectives range from Trump's compulsions in domestic politics to the future
trajectory of the US policies toward Syria and the impact of any US-Turkish rapprochement on
the geopolitics of the Syrian conflict.
Meanwhile, the US-Turkish joint statement creates new uncertainties. The two countries
have agreed on a set of principles -- Turkey's crucial status as a NATO power ; security of
Christian minorities in Syria; prevention of an ISIS surge; creation of a "safe zone" on
Turkish-Syrian border; a 120-hour ceasefire ("pause") in Turkish military operations leading
to a permanent halt, hopefully.
The devil lies in the details. Principally, there is no transparency regarding the future
US role in Syria . The Kurds and the US military will withdraw from the 30-kilometre broad
buffer zone. What thereafter? In the words of the US Vice-President Mike Pence at the press
conference in Ankara on Thursday,
"Kurdish population in Syria, with which we have a strong relationship, will continue to
endure. The United States will always be grateful for our partnership with SDF in defeating
ISIS, but we recognise the importance and the value of a safe zone to create a buffer between
Syria proper and the Kurdish population and -- and the Turkish border. And we're going to be
working very closely ."
To be sure, everything devolves upon the creation of the safe zone. Turkey envisages a
zone stretching across the entire 440 kilometre border with Syria upto Iraqi border, while
the US special envoy James Jeffrey remains non-committal, saying it is up to the "Russians
and the Syrians in other areas of the northeast and in Manbij to the west of the Euphrates"
to agree to Turkey's maximalist stance.
Herein lies the rub. Jeffrey would know Ankara will never get its way with Moscow and
Damascus. In fact, President Bashar al-Assad told in unequivocal terms to a high-level
Russian delegation visiting Damascus on Friday, "At the current phase it is necessary to
focus on putting an end to aggression and on the pullout of all Turkish, US and other forces
illegally present in Syrian territories."
Is there daylight between Moscow and Damascus on this highly sensitive issue? Turkish
President Recep Erdogan's forthcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi
on October 22 may provide an answer.
Clearly, the US hopes wrench Turkey from the Russian embrace. Moscow's studied
indifference toward the US-Turkish cogitations betrays its uneasiness. Conceivably, Erdogan
will expect Putin to take a holistic view, considering Russia's flourishing and high
lucrative economic and military ties with Turkey and the imperative to preserve the momentum
of Russia-Turkey relationship.
If the US policy in Syria in recent years promoted the Kurdish identity, it has now
swung to the other extreme of stoking the fires of Turkish revanchism. This is potentially
catastrophic for regional stability. The heart of the matter is that while Turkey's
concerns over terrorism and the refugee problem are legitimate, Operation Peace Spring has
deeper moorings: Turkey's ambitions as regional power and its will to correct the perceived
injustice of territorial losses incurred during the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The
ultra-nationalistic Turkish commentator (and staunch supporter of Erdogan) wrote this week in
the pro-government daily Yeni Safak:
"Turkey once again revived the millennium-old political history on Anatolian
territory. It took action with a mission that will carry the legacy of the Seljuks, the
Ottomans, the Republic of Turkey to the next stage It is not possible to set an equation in
this region by excluding Turkey – it will not happen. A map cannot be drawn that
excludes Turkey – it will not happen. A power cannot be established without Turkey
– it will not happen. Throughout history, both the rise and fall of this country has
altered the region the mind in Turkey is now a regional mind, a regional conscience, a
regional identity. President Erdoğan is the pioneer, the bearer of that political
legacy from the Seljuks, the Ottomans, and the Turkish Republic to the future."
Trump is unlikely to pay attention to the irredentist instincts in Turkish regional
policies. Trump's immediate concerns are to please the evangelical Christian constituency in
the US and silence his critics who allege that he threw the Kurds under the bus or that a
ISIS resurgence is imminent. But there is no way the US can deliver on the tall promises made
in the joint statement. The Kurds have influential friends in the Pentagon. (See the article
by Gen. Joseph Votel, former chief of the US Central Command, titled The Danger of Abandoning
our Partners.) Nonetheless, the main outcome will be that Turkey feels it has western
support for its long-term occupation of Syrian territory.
All in all, it's a "win-win" for Erdogan insofar as he got what he wanted -- US' political
and diplomatic support for "the kind of long-term buffer zone that will ensure peace and
stability in the region", to borrow the words of Vice President Pence. A Turkish withdrawal
from Syrian territory can now be virtually ruled out. State secretary Mike Pompeo added at
the press conference in Ankara on Thursday that there is "a great deal of work to do in the
region. There's lots of challenges that remain."
Pompeo said Erdogan's "decision to work alongside President Trump will be one that I think
will benefit Turkey a great deal." Arguably, US expects Turkey's cooperation to
strengthen its strategy in Syria (and Iraq) where it seeks to contain Iran's influence. From
Ankara, Pompeo travelled to Jerusalem to brief Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. "
Add to that, that the Turks now threaten SAA with "full out war".
John Helmers latest post sheds light on the fact, that the Russian military leadership and
the Stavka in general has warned Putin since the Idlib deal again and again to no avail that
the Turks would do this.
Which seems now to have been proven true since the US-Turk deal, which in essence changed
everything overnight.
As the extremity of propaganda in mainstream news becomes more obvious a few American
consumers of news do begin to have doubts. Most continue to be entirely uncritical. The
barflies here are in the habit of being critical, analytic, skeptical when reading any news
from any source. That is not the American way.
The cohort of educated prosperous middle class readers of the NYT has total faith in NYT.
Having the paper edition on the doorstep in the morning is a badge of membership. A totem
that gives them status. Questioning any word or phrase or clause that appears in print is
wrong. Asking questions means something is wrong with you. The Times is never wrong. Those
who doubt the Times have mental health issues. Or they are alt-right. Or they are deplorable.
For the intended audience the propaganda feed is always completely effective. Readers of the
Times will never untie the knot.
As the extremity of propaganda in mainstream news becomes more obvious a few American
consumers of news do begin to have doubts. Most continue to be entirely uncritical. The
barflies here are in the habit of being critical, analytic, skeptical when reading any news
from any source. That is not the American way.
The cohort of educated prosperous middle class readers of the NYT has total faith in NYT.
Having the paper edition on the doorstep in the morning is a badge of membership. A totem
that gives them status. Questioning any word or phrase or clause that appears in print is
wrong. Asking questions means something is wrong with you. The Times is never wrong. Those
who doubt the Times have mental health issues. Or they are alt-right. Or they are deplorable.
For the intended audience the propaganda feed is always completely effective. Readers of the
Times will never untie the knot.
"Why" always seem like a good question, eh? The NYT lies...why?
This quote caught my attention> " The powerful and historical walls to study today are
those of the Kremlin." (Fisk, information clearing house)
As it was for Winston's "Ministry of Truth" (Orwell) the NYT article is necessary. That's
the significance - not the lies but the necessity of lies...
And under what situations are lies required? Think about that when (if) you read Fisk's
analysis. (I am not a fan of Fisk, but his views in this instance align with my own rather
well)
Fisk article title> "Trump's disgrace in the Middle East is the death of an empire.
Vladimir Putin is Caesar now"
Some may recall that the monks on Mt Athos quietly elected VVP as the Byzantine Emperor
(about 2 years ago) - the Eastern branch of Christianity continues whilst nominally
christian(western) branch is fake and perverse ritual and worse...while his Popeness in Rome
has as Luther saw... I think Luther said it was a vast brothel...
Does this need Daniel to read the writing...
which is?
mene mene tekel upharsin (well somebody said..)
By the way my vote for the clown-man was cast because I reasoned the best esthetic feature
in the freak parade at the end of empire would be a clown act. I am indebted to the late
George Carlin for the symbolism.
I am proved right? I think so. Dogs bark and caravan continue...and many expect dollars to
go weimarish. then?
Ahh.. "experts"... Hassan Hassan is not a Syrian-born scholar, but a Syrian "born-scholar"...
Nuance. Or is it "a natural-born-scholar"? ...
As for Israeli propagandist Elizabeth Tsurkov, those very same "bad extremists" she now
repudiates on Twitter she once excused for mutilating children "because they were deeply
traumatised"... A very coherent "expert"!!
From The Grayzone, Ben Norton and Aaron Maté (and Dan Cohen) about Tsurkov: Western
pundits who lobbied for Syrian rebels now admit they are jihadist extremists, Oct. 16 (about
Tsurkov, go about 1:45 and the rest): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkg4wJFpc_E
Now Tsurkov seems rather busy rooting for some "color revolution" to take place in Lebanon.
Where is Israel?...
As for the picture of Guy Verhofstadt next to Salim Idriss, it seems very aptly to epitomize
the EU "politics" about the Syrian conflict: "How tasty those American boots are!! Wanna lick
more American boots, please!!"
Ahh.. "experts"... Hassan Hassan is not a Syrian-born scholar, but a Syrian
"born-scholar"... Nuance. Or is it "a natural-born-scholar"? ...
If he is writing nothing but lies he is not any kind of scholar at all except a
fake scholar. Nor is he a journalist. He is a propagandist, nothing else. Call a spade
a spade.
-----
Ahhh, I've just posted to the Media and Pundits thread, but it should have come here much
more sensibly. Anyway the post is top a new page over there, on Trump and Syria's oil
fields.
The new narrative seems to me to have everything to do with Turkey and nothing to do with
Russia.
A comment in the last Syria-related thread.
Then again there are so many loose ends concerning Turkey that almost anything could
happen (coup attempt and "cleansing", dead ambassadors, Cyprus, Greece, Armenia, Syria, ISIS
and others, Kurds, weapon deals, shooting down a Russian plane, annoying Europe and the EU as
well as the US and just about everybody, some only politically but many militarily as well
(at least the US, Germany, and France), the list surely goes on).
As I commented I'm not convinced Turkey will survive this, are they able to stop and
reverse if they find they've set themselves up?
Turkey might be playing a double-game, or plan to betray one side - whether it'll be US or
Russia remains to be seen. But that this is all a clever NATO plot conflicts a bit with the
fact that the US is systematically destroying its bases in NE Syria. Sure, that might be
because they don't want the SAA to use them and to plunder them for techs and scraps, but
that would also make things more complicated for a Turkish take-over - it will surely
considerably slow the process if the Turkish army and its lackeys have to do everything back
from scratches.
Besides, odds are that Putin has taken that into consideration and has some contingency
measures ready, just in case - not that they could fully stop Turkish aggression in its
tracks in a couple of hours, but still.
Meanwhile Nicholas Kristof at the NYTimes also is whitewashing Obama's Syrian policy. He
conveniently forgets Timber Sycamore (the CIA's second largest operation, over $1 billion) to
overthrow Assad - 2013-2017, that allowed ISIS to get a firm foothold.
Trump Takes Incoherence and Inhumanity and Calls It Foreign Policy
"It was just five years ago that an American president, faced with a crisis on Syria's
border, acted decisively and honorably."
"Barack Obama responded with airstrikes and a rescue operation in 2014 when the Islamic
State started a genocide against members of the Yazidi sect, slaughtering men and forcing
women and girls into sexual slavery. Obama's action, along with a heroic intervention by
Kurdish fighters, saved tens of thousands of Yazidi lives."
"Contrast Obama's move, successfully working with allies to avert a genocide, with
President Trump's betrayal this month of those same Kurdish partners in a way that handed a
victory to the Islamic State, Turkey, Syria, Iran -- and, of course, Russia, ."
@ Walter 5: "I reasoned the best esthetic feature in the freak parade at the end of empire
would be a clown act"
Just love it!!
On a side note. Last night met with a new friend couple for dinner. Both are highly
educated and work in technical professions. Accordingly they pride themselves in logical
thinking ability. I wanted to check out their political leanings and asked about Trump's
troop pullback in Syria. Not surprisingly, both were outraged. When asked about their
rationale the expected answer was Trump's betrayal of the Kurds. I politely pointed out that
our troops' presence in Syria violates both domestic and international laws. That was news to
them!!! One of them did lamely point out that Assad is a brutal dictator. Being new
"friends", we refrained from further in depth political discussions. That incidence further
convinced me of the impending total collapse of the empire.
There has been some discussion regarding Syrian oilfields, here's some more on that.
The Syrian Democratic Council is the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, including sites of Syrian oilfields. The
SDC's stated mission is working towards the implementation of a "secular, democratic and
decentralized system for all of Syria. The Syrian Democratic Council was established on 10
December 2015 in Al-Malikiyah.
Here is a
letter dated Jan 21, 2019 from the SDC to the CEO of Global Development Corporation (GDC)
Inc. in New Jersey, "a formal acceptance of your company, GDC, to represent the Syrian
Democratic Council (SDC) in all matters related to the sale of oil owned by SDC . .the
estimate off production of crude oil to be 400,000 barrels per day. . .current daily
production is 125,000 barrels. ."
The CEO of New Jersey's GDC (no mention on the web) is Mordechai (Moti) Kahana (Hebrew:
מוטי כהנא; born February 28, 1968,
Jerusalem, Israel) is an Israeli-American businessman and philanthropist. He is most notable
for his work for the civil war refugees in Syria. . .Since 2011 he heads a group of Israeli
businessmen and American Jews who travel to the Syrian refugee camps to provide humanitarian
aid to Syrian Civil War refugees.. . He paid for Senator John McCain's trip to war-torn
Syria. . . here
.
The GDC mailing address is the Roxbury Mall, 275 Route 10 E, Succasunna, NJ.
re: Salim Idriss a former U.S. stooge
WSJ, Jun 12, 2013 Rebels Plead for Weapons in Face of Syrian Onslaught
A top Syrian rebel commander has issued a desperate plea for weapons from Western
governments to prevent the fall of his forces in Aleppo, pushing the Obama administration
to decide quickly whether to agree to arm rebels for the first time or risk the loss of
another rebel stronghold just days after the regime's biggest victory.
Gen. Salim Idris, the top Syrian rebel commander backed by the West, issued a detailed
request in recent days to the U.S., France and Britain for antitank missiles, antiaircraft
weapons and hundreds of thousands of ammunition rounds, according to U.S. and European
officials and Mr. Idris's request to the Americans, a copy of which was reviewed by The
Wall Street Journal.
Gen. Idris's call comes at a pivotal moment in Syria's war, following rapid-fire gains
by Bashar al-Assad forces, including last week's recapture of Qusayr, a strategic town near
the Lebanon border. Fighters from Hezbollah, which were crucial in helping the Assad regime
to take Qusayr, are now massing around Aleppo, say rebels and Western officials. . .
here
This was after H. Clinton (SecState) and D. Petraeus (CIA) wanted to fully arm the
US-supported rebels but President Obama declined. Clinton had resigned Feb 1, 2013.
thanks b... stellar writing and comments throughout... i especially liked your last line
:
"Now, as the very same rebels attack the Kurds, they are suddenly called out for being what
they always have been."
@13 don bacon - the address says it all.. The GDC mailing address is the Roxbury Mall, 275
Route 10 E, Succasunna, NJ.
regarding the nyt, larry johnson has a post up on sst
here.. i quote from it :
"Let us start with a reminder of how damn corrupt the NY Times and its reporters are.
Consider this paragraph penned by Adam Goldman and William Rashbaum:
Closely overseen by Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and his investigators have sought help from
governments in countries that figure into right-wing attacks and unfounded conspiracy
theories about the Russia investigation, stirring criticism that they are trying to deliver
Mr. Trump a political victory rather than conducting an independent review.
"Unfounded conspiracy theories?" What a damn joke."
Wow! Quite a knee jerk reaction by the NY Times to Max
Blumenthal's 16 Oct article in The Grayzone , "The US has backed 21 of the 28
'crazy' militias leading Turkey's brutal invasion of northern Syria," which I linked to
Friday. It's great to see such a reaction to what for most people's an obscure online
publication.
Notice of MoA website change: I must now type in my name and email every time I want to
comment after years of never needing to do so. My issue might be related to the one ben
encountered in thinking he couldn't comment, which you can't if those two fields aren't
filled.
"Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government.
When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be
employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press
and a mere token opposition party..."
Trump should not have sent Pence and Pompeo to Turkey. They will do everything possible to
derail the rollback of the US in Syria. They are both more subtle than Bolton, but they are
both neocons. If you want anything done, you have to do it yourself.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Some of the "virtual facts:" ..."
"... The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist and an inevitable and indeed indispensable enemy of the US. Anyone who challenges that certitude is an obvious agent of the Russian government. ..."
"... Iran is the "greatest supporter of terrorism" in the world." ..."
"... The Syrian Arab Government is an abomination on the scale of Nazi Germany and must be destroyed and replaced by God knows what . ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is a deeply friendly state and ally of the US. ..."
"... It is beyond scary to see just how entrenched and powerful Deep State is and how it involves/controls both political parties ..."
"... I doubt there is any magic bullet website or other source of information that would turn people over night. A good start would be encouraging them to read transcripts of various Putin and Lavrov speeches and pressers, also Valdai Club, economic forum ect. ..."
"... The colonel's complaint implicitly assumes that things were not always thus. My adult experience since I saw a war up close has been that the "facts" of our public discourse are always simplified and usually grossly distorted. ..."
"... Not only are the MSM married to a narrative but they feel compelled to attack the few who ever challenge the orthodoxy. For example, 'Tulsi Gabbard met with the war criminal Assad'. ..."
"... It is certainly true that Russia is being demonized in all the MSM I have sampled. A frequent criticism is that Putin, like Assad, and earlier Saddam and Quadaffi, is essentially an illegitimate ruler of his country, ruling through brute force and without the consent of his countrymen. (Thus the WaPo editorials routinely call Putin a "thug", just as they call Assad a "butcher".) ..."
"... Not to defend Trump and his balance sheet mindset with respect to the Saudis, the reality is that both parties and presidents from George H.W to Bill Clinton to W and Obama have treated the Saudi monarchy as our "friend", even when they sponsored the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. ..."
"... Tony Blair became a wealthy man after his prime ministership on the back of money thrown his way by the Arab sheikhs ..."
Mika B remarked a couple of years ago on the show that she and her sex slave stage in the
early morning that the social media were out of control because it is the job of the MSM to
tell people what to think. The Hillary stated recently that life was better when there were
only three TeeVee news outlets because it was easier to keep things under control. Now? My God!
Any damned fool can propagate unauthorized "facts." What? Who?
Well, pilgrims, the US government (along with our British and Israeli helpmates and masters)
are the preeminent creators and purveyors of the manufactured virtual facts on which we base
our policy. These "facts" are "ginned up" in the well moneyed hidden staff groups of "hidden"
candidates that are devoted to the seizure of power made possible by a deluded electorate.
These "facts" are then propagated and reinforced through relentless IO campaigns run by
executive "bots" in the MSM and in such remarkable and imaginative efforts as the "White
Helmets" film company manned by jihadis and managed by clubby Brits left over from the Days of
The Raj (sob). These "facts" are now so entrenched in the general mind that they can be used to
denounce people like Rep. (major ) Gabbard as traitors because they challenge them.
Some of the "virtual facts:"
The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist and an inevitable and indeed
indispensable enemy of the US. Anyone who challenges that certitude is an obvious agent of
the Russian government.
Iran is the "greatest supporter of terrorism" in the world." Iran is so designated by the
State Department on the annual list of terrorism supporting states which asserts this to be
true on the basis of Iranian support of Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas, calling
them "terrorist" groups rather than anti -Israeli nationalist resistance organizations. This
Zionist inspired propaganda is spread far and wide by neocon "useful idiots" like Maria
Bartiromo and Jesse Watters.
The Syrian Arab Government is an abomination on the scale of Nazi Germany and must be
destroyed and replaced by God knows what ... "They gassed their own people!" Bullshit! There
is no objective evidence for that. There are nothing but propaganda statements by the FUKUS
governments unsupported by any real evidence. The MI-6 funded (with USAID money) Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights (located in a basement in England) as well as the White Helmets
murder/propaganda operation states that the SAG is guilty as charged but independent
investigation says that assertions of SAG guilt are untrue.
Saudi Arabia is a deeply friendly state and ally of the US. How mad an idea is this! This
theocratic, absolute monarchy is a friend of the US? How insane an idea! Trump has a balance
sheet where a soul should be and that is the basis for the belief that MBS and/or his
"country" are our friends. pl
Yes I fully concur. We have gone from fact-based news to faith-based fake news led by the
MSM. I recall at the start of the Iraq War in March 2003, the line was out that British PM
Tony Blair was George W. Bush's "poodle," forgetting entirely that it was the first of the
British "dodgy dossiers" that made the totally discredited claim that Saddam had gotten tons
of yellow cake from Niger. So the British have no military resources but they continue to
maintain the idea that they can manipulate the U.S. and make up for the demise of the old
British empire.
The Steele dossier was the second British "dodgy dossier" that got the ball rolling on
Trump the Russian mole and Putin's "poodle."
So much fraud. But now social media must be patrolled and anyone daring to challenge the
voice of the MSM must be purged by Google, Facebook, Twitter et al.
My question is: When will the machinations of the Big Lie MSM Wurlitzer cross the line and
trigger the backlash that they secretly fear so much? MSM has to destroy Trump by 2020 or
else his "fake news" polemic will stick... because there is no much truth to it. The
messenger may be crude, but he has the bully pulpit to have a real impact.
I await the release, as Larry Johnson pointed out, of the Horowitz IG report on the
origins of the fake Trump-Russia collusion line. Also the pending Barr-Durham larger report
which is zeroing in on John Brennan.
"MSM has to destroy Trump by 2020 or else..."
The MSM are joined by all those folks who were wined, dined, and degraded by Jeffrey Epstein
and Hollywood hero Harvey Weinstein. Nobody seems to care about who Jeffrey abused, or who
enjoyed his island paradise. Harvey, he's about to buy a free ride out of jail. Meanwhile we
jail idiots who "bribe" there kids way into that "elite" institution - UCLA.
an ideal study would no doubt want to look into the Italy-GB-US angle already concerning
the "first dossier", or whatevers. Didn*t that have mediawise an intermediate French
angle?
This is what happens when the deciders believe their own propaganda. The media now says
that a residual force of American troops and contractors will stay behind at the Deir ez-Zor
oil fields and Al-Tanf base near the Jordon border. The media moguls dare not mention that
the real intention is to prevent the Syrian Arab Army from retaking its own territory or that
Turkey is seizing thousands of square miles of Syria. Syrians with Russia, Chinese and
Iranian aid won't quit until Syria is whole again and rebuilt. This means that America
continues its uninvited unwinnable war in the middle of nowhere with no allies for no reason
at all except to do Israel's bidding and to make money for military contractors. The swamp's
regime change campaign failed. The Houthis' Aramco attack shows that the gulf oil supply is
at risk and can be shut down at will. Continuing these endless wars that are clearly against
the best interests of the American people is insane.
It strikes me, as a matter of observable fact, that the Houthi attack had almost no long run
affect on oil production. Everything was back to normal within 10 days. I think that the
attack was allowed to occur for exactly one reason and that was to start a shooting war
between the USA as KSA's great defender and Iran as the horrible nation that has a mild
dislike for Israel.
It failed. So far.
To believe that the 24/7/52 AWACS, Ground radar, Israeli radar, and the overlapping close in
radar coverage of the Saudi oil fields all failed to detect the drones and cruise missiles is
to believe in more miracles than I can handle on a good day. It also means that assets in
other parts of this world covered by these same type of radars are just as vulnerable to
local disaffected groups.
The FUKUS thinks we are all a bunch of brainless sheep to be led by a ring in our noses. The
'Muktar' is clueless regarding our Saudi brethren, he's supposed to administer how the
overlords say he's to administer, nothing more. The CIA administration still has a hard-on
because they blew it regarding Iran and they're still embarrassed about it.
In two days, counting closer to a day and a half will be the sad anniversary (October 23)
where the Israeli government willfully with forethought let our Marines and other service
personnel bunked with them at the barracks in Beirut die needlessly, because Nahum Admoni
wanted U.S. to get our noses bloodied.
Never mind that the Russians lost close to 30 million to the brotherhood of the Operation
Paper Clip, and the Bormann Group that today controls from behind the scenes most of the
World's money thanks to Martin creating over 750 corporations initially to start with, that
has expanded like a Hydra. Any time that truth (Russia is no longer Communist) rears its ugly
head, the Bormann group goes into overdrive to ensure that the big lie perpetuates.
The FUKUS think we're all a bunch of sheep to be led off a cliff, and the propaganda mills
have created the trail right up to the edge of the precipice that the sheep are trotting.
Amen. The landslide of disinformation and bullshit disseminated on a daily basis by a pliant
media is happily lapped up by ignorant, uninformed Americans. I've had quite an exchange with
a liberal friend of mine who was shrieking MSNBC talking points on Syria and the Kurds. Mind
you, this fellow never served a day in the military. Never held a clearance in his life.
Didn't know a thing about JOPES and how Special Ops forces use a series of written orders
signed off on by the CJCS. Yet, he was qualified to criticize Trump. At the same time not one
of his kids or grandkids are signed up to fight on that frontline. I told him politely to
STFU and get educated before trying to comment on something he knows nothing about.
Thanks Colonel.
I am British and did consider the military in my youth but if I were that age now I would
not. Having seen what my political master, and yours, have asked the military to do the
danger of being sent on some counter product regime change mission or to prop-up someone I
would rather fight is just too great. I would only end up refusing to follow orders which I
understand the military takes a rather dim view of.
... regime change mission or to prop-up someone I would rather fight is just too
great.
once upon a time, and strictly I had opted not to believe either side before that, but
yes, at one point I wondered fully aware they may be legitimate complaints, how would the
UCK, or the Kosovo Liberation Army become the "Western" partner in war.
In hindsight I was made aware of this one grandiose British officer ... once upon a
time.
"if I were that age now..." That is the same line used by the American left since the
'60s.
"I would only end up refusing to follow orders..."
Samantha Power at the UN and James Comey at the FBI both had a "higher loyalty" than to the
elected government or the Constitution on which it is based. That's why they are busy trying
to subvert it.
There's a lot of truth there, Colonel. Life would be better with just three TV new outlets,
huh. Which three? Can you imagine being limited to three cable new outlets? Actually most
people probably limit themselves to three news outlets or less. They find an echo chamber and
stick with it. I thank God I don't have cable or satellite TV and I have too many interests
to engage with talk radio.
I couldn't agree more with your characterization of "virtual facts" about Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia. I also agree that those who continue to view Russia as an implacable enemy bent
on our destruction and world domination are liars and/or fools. The Soviet Union was just a
phase, a phase now past. Russia never ended. Conversely, those who insist that Russia is a
newly minted nation of glitter farting unicorns incapable of nefarious behavior are also
fools and/or liars. Russia is a formidable competitor, fully capable and willing to take
prudent actions in pursuit of her interests. We should respect her and seek cooperation where
we can and tolerance where we must.
How the never-Trumpers treat Tulsi Gabbard is shameful. What Clinton recently said is mild
compared to what others have been saying for quite some time. Calling Tulsi a Russian asset
is foolishly wrong. That Russia may prefer Tulsi over other potential Presidential candidates
should be seen as a positive thing. A policy of mutual respect, cooperation and tolerance
between our two countries would benefit the entire world.
America needed to restore the Kuwait monarchy for freedom and democracy. Remember defense
Secretary Dick Cheney sending captured Iraq arms to the Taliban.
Same play book was used to run Libyan arms through Bengazi to Wahhabism freedom fighter
"ISIS" and the al Lindsey McCain head choppers.
The nonsense will end since not even the United States can endure these costs. Did you hear
Trump? 8 trillion yankee dollars and nothing to show for it.
What is highly alarming, almost terrifying, is that really well educated people who have
achieved great things in their careers and are pillars of society believe this crap.
I had dinner guests last week; a former Chairman of a bank and his wife who is a highly
acclaimed Professor of public Health and Epidemiology who told me how awful Trump and Putin
are neither of these friends are what you could remotely classify as Social Justice
leftists.
My problem is that I don't know where to start to try and put them right without them
thinking I'm a tinfoil hatted conspiracy nut. I wish there was a website dedicated solely to
purveying basic truthful information that is not perhaps as esoteric as SST. Should I try and
start one or are there already good examples to point to?
I'm thinking this is so far and so deep there is nothing that can or will be done. Trump's
election and presidency has lifted the curtain on the puppet show. This recent Syria troop
removal is Trump's second attempt at openly declaring troops will be pulled out of Syria only
to have the military has said, "Um, no, we will stay and simply relocate."
Trump openly
called for FISA warrants to be declassified only to have the DOJ and FBI either ignore and
defy him. Groups like Judicial Watch and others go into court to get the requested
information through FOIA and DOJ and FBI lawyers and the courts block them.
It is beyond
scary to see just how entrenched and powerful Deep State is and how it involves/controls both
political parties. Trump has faced hurricane winds of opposition from day one and has been
constantly subverted by his own party and his own people. I don't know how he can get up
every day and continue to fight the obvious and concerted Deep State coup against him. I pray
for him. I pray the rosary for him.
There are members within Trump's own party who have agreed that there should be an
investigation into the impeachment of Trump for running a yellow light (at most). Again,
members of his own party. Renowned Constitutional lawyers John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz, from
Cal-Berkeley and Harvard laws schools respectively, have said that not only has Trump done
nothing, even remotely, which could trigger an impeachment inquiry but if Congress were to do
so it would be unconstitutional and illegal. But alas, who would enforce this? Deep State
snakes like John Roberts at the Supreme Court? Robert has already signed off on the coup (
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-trial.amp).
The only thing that separates America from falling into the abyss is Trump, a handful of
people in Washington, a few conservative talk show hosts, and about 40% of America. Many
people have talked a good game at points but I think in the end are just double agents of the
dark side/Deep State (Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, ... IG Horowitz, etc.). And some, such
as Chris Wray, are unabashed dark side/Deep State agents in good standing.
As St. Thomas More said, "The times are never so bad that a good man cannot live in them."
I have faith in Barr. I have faith in Durham. Two men whose Catholic faith is integral to
every aspect of their lives and work. But with as pervasive, entrenched, and powerful as the
Deep State is I'm skeptical they have the power to do anything. Btw, here's U.S. Attorney
John Durham's lecture before the Thomistic Institute at Yale (hosted by the Dominican Order):
https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/perspective-of-a-catholic-prosecutor-honorable-john-durham
One thing that really amuses me is that the marionettes of Deep State in the media and
politics actually believe that once Trump is gone their puppet show theatre can resume like
nothing happened. Sorry, but there is no coming back from this. They will be lucky if the
worst thing that happens is a sizable part of of the American populace protests by throwing
sand in the gears. I'm afraid it will end much worse.
I doubt there is any magic bullet website or other source of information that would turn
people over night. A good start would be encouraging them to read transcripts of various
Putin and Lavrov speeches and pressers, also Valdai Club, economic forum ect.
Most only get to see the odd sentence or paragragh in western MSM with an entirely
fictional story built around it, so perhaps and MSM piece like that and the transcript of the
relevant presser or speech alongside it.
I suspect the fine detail in Putin and Lavrov's replies to press questions
rather than cliches would surprise many people.
Walrus--100% my experience as well. Many dinners with "liberal" even "progressive" friends,
mostly of the retired kind require great psychic energy. Their Overton Window is 1"-square,
making exchanges very difficult to squeeze even minimal bits of political reality.
My daily
blog tour, like MW's above, takes me through: Moon of Alabama, Naked Capitalism, SST, Caitlin
Johnstone, Grayzone and a few others. I'm intel gathering -- but I need to figure out how to
convey broader perspectives even to my 40-45 year-old children and their friends. Inside the
Beltway assumptions are hard to de-program.
While I agree with the essence of the post I disagree with the characterization of SOHR. It
tends to get its stuff right. I have listed several significant events where SOHR disagreed
with the official narrative: On Sources And Information - The Syrian
Observatory For Human Rights . Those are exactly the moments where SOHR is disregarded by
the pressitude.
It is the selective quoting of such sources that paint them as partisan even as they try
to stay somewhat neutral.
---
@Pat - Any comment to the Gen. McRaven op-ed in the NYT? Our Republic
Is Under Attack From the President If President Trump doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time
for a new person in the Oval Office.
Isn't it a call to mutiny? It seems to me to be far beyond the allowed political comment
from a retired General.
Those that look up the pole, all they see is assholes. Those that look down all they see is
assholes, but those that look straight ahead, they see which path to take.
The colonel's complaint implicitly assumes that things were not always thus. My adult
experience since I saw a war up close has been that the "facts" of our public discourse are
always simplified and usually grossly distorted.
Is the Iranian regime terrible? Well, yes,
but it is also a regime that holds real elections and often loses them. Not in the same
league of awful with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
Similarly with the other examples. The
"facts" have in each case a basis in truth but do not by themselves give a true picture. Is
our discourse more unfair to Russia than it was to Nasser's Egypt? Is our promotion of Saudi
Arabia any worse than our adulation of Chiang Kai-shek?
Not only are the MSM married to a narrative but they feel compelled to attack the few who
ever challenge the orthodoxy. For example, 'Tulsi Gabbard met with the war criminal Assad'.
It would do our vaunted free press wonders if they traveled to Damascus instead of
repeating the same tired talking points about Syria. I'll never forget the look on Gabbard's
face when she talked about the Syrians came up to her and said, 'why are you attacking us,
what did we do to you'. Meeting real people can undo a lifetime of blather and must be
stopped at all cost.
b Perhaps memory fails me but I think SOHR propagated the SAG gas attacks mythology. I have
stated that McRaven should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed. I could find
several punitice articles in UCMJ under which he could be charged.
When McCain returned from the Hanoi Hilton he could have been prosecuted for treason he was
not because "peace with honour" overrode UCMJ and honour. McRaven is being offered up as a
distraction. Call him back to active duty yes, and assign him somewhere dreary, unimportant
and far from CONUS. Ignore the stuff he is blathering while he is retired, if he repeats
blather while on active duty then the navy might be able to recover some honour.
No...your memory does not fail you, Colonel, the SOHR was the main source cited at MSM level
on the alleged protests which gave place to the destruction of Syria and the legitimation and
labelling of alleged "moderate rebels" which then resulted being but terrorist jihadi groups
brought mainly from abroad under financing and mtrainning of non Syrian actors...
The source on the alleged atrocities commited by Assad was SOHR at the first years of the
war on Syria, along with Doctors Without Borders and "special envoys" by British and French
main papers reporting from the former, and first, "Baba Amr" caliphate in Homs....I am
meaning the times of Sunday Times´ Marie Colvin and the other woman from Le
Figaro , who then resulted or KIA or caught amongst the jihadists ranks along with other
foreign "special envoys" who then were released in a truce with Assad through a safe
corridor, especially made for that end, to Lebanon.
I fear SOHR was the source of the super-trolling consisting on inundating the MSM comments
sections, like that of El País , with dozens of vertical doctored photographs
every time any of us aware entered commenting to debunk their fake news.
I remember this since that was the starting point of Elora as net activist...( till then,
just a baby, peacefully growing up...unaware....but had no election, felt it was a duty,
since, as you comment here, so few people aware...Having known Syria few years before she
could not believe what they were telling about Assad, who, eventhough not being perfect, as
it has been long ago proved any other leader in the world is, had managed to show the
visitant a flourishing Syria where misery present at other ME countries was almost
absent...
It is only lately, when the Syrian war was obviously lost for the US coalition, that the
SOHR started contradicting some fake claims by the White Helmets, especially last two alleged
chemical attacks, if Elora´s not wrong.
Why this, why now, why in this form? Probably those powers behind SOHR trying to secure a
part in the cake of reconstruction and future of Syria...since, it got obvious, love for
Syria is not amongst one of their mottos...
Trump approves $4.5 million in aid for Syria's White Helmets
WASHINGTON -- US President Donald Trump has authorized $4.5 million in aid for Syria's
White Helmets group, famed for rescuing wounded civilians from the frontlines in the civil
war, the White House says today...
Thank you for this refuge from the noise. How long before the strangling of information makes
its way here, and to Craig Murray, Naked Capitalism, and others who look on with clear eyes?
Humans are copy/paste artists and generally not very good at creative thinking. When shown a
series of steps to achieve a reward people will repeat all the steps including clearly
unnecessary ones. Monkeys will drop unnecessary steps and frequently show more creativity by
using a different method to achieve the reward instead of copying.
The old story goes how a woman always cut the ends off a roast before putting it in a pan.
When her daughter asks why she doesn't know, asks her mother who doesn't know and asks the
great grandmother who laughs and says her pan was too small.
I suspect it is a functional tradeoff that lets us transfer great amounts of cultural
information and maintain a civilization of sorts. It creates a tough environment for
innovators and allows for easy manipulation of the majority.
Nature of course always has a sprinkling of minority traits in the gene pool to allow for
sudden changes in the environment. Most likely those of us that are more critical thinkers
and like in depth, multi-dimensional viewpoints and historical knowledge are always going to
be standing by watching the crowd do their copy/paste thing.
The rise of the internet giving easy access to more "sources" means more fragmentation in
worldviews than ever before depending on where people copy/paste from.
Re: only three TV channels and they all said the same thing!
Once Upon a Time, not so long ago, publishing news was hard. For one thing, you needed a
printing press, which was big, expensive and required housing and specialized technicians to
operate it. Not only that, but a printing press cost money for every sheet of paper printed,
and you had to spend more money to distribute what he printed.
They say that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" but there's more! Unless
you were already rich and planned to publish as an expensive and time-consuming hobby, you
needed an income stream. You would get some money from subscriptions, but subscriptions are
really a means to sell advertising. Dependence on advertising meant that there were some
people the publisher had to keep happy, and others he could not afford to annoy.
Anyone who knows anything about local news knows this. At best, it's a tightrope walk
between giving subscribers the news they want to know, and not infuriating your advertisers.
The result was a sort of natural censorship. Publishers had to think long and hard before
they published anything that would tork the bigwigs off. The fact that a publisher was tied
to a physical location and physical assets also made libel suits much easier.
The same thing applied to broadcast TV, only more so. It took orders of magnitude more
money, and you were restricted to a limited amount of bandwidth.
The internet changed all that. Now, any anonymous toolio with a laptop ($299 cheap at
WallyWorld) and WiFi (free at many businesses) can go into the news publishing business by
nightfall, and with worldwide distribution and an advertising revenue stream, to boot.
Marginal cost of readership is zero.
Needless to say, this development has The People That Matter very concerned, and they are
working hard to stuff that genie back into the bottle.
For what it's worth, I found the late Udo Ulfkotte's personal-experience book "Bought
Jounalism" to be quite interesting on this topic, as it details the kind of nuts-and-bolts of
print-media prostitution. But I would really like to see an org-chart sometime of the
overlapping, possibly competing, mission control centers (if that's the right phrase) that
control the various "Wurlitzer" messaging and who, ultimately, is on charge of these. It has
been intriguing to watch, since Kerry uttered his "the Internet makes it very hard to govern"
line years ago, the blurry outline of a vast operation to shut down any non-approved media
messages, now including all social media. To give credit where credit is due, "they" sure
have done a bang-up job in feeding bullshit across all platforms down the throats of a
Western people, like a goose being fattened up for foie gras.
"...the US government (along with our British and Israeli helpmates and masters) are the
preeminent creators and purveyors of the manufactured virtual facts on which we base our
policy."
Sir
I've been perplexed for some time what the objectives are of these virtual fact creators?
When one digs into who the movers & shakers are in the virtual fact creation apparatus
then it seems very much analogous to the Jeffrey Epstein orbit. Folks bound together through
the carrot of extraordinary personal gain and the stick of personal destruction. Your
Drinking the Koolaid, is a seminal work in exploring how these virtual facts are created and
how those who challenge the creation are marginalized and even destroyed personally.
IMO, policy making on the basis of virtual facts extends beyond foreign policy to economic
and financial policy as well as healthcare policy in the US. The symptoms are seen in growing
wealth inequality and increased market concentration globally and financial policy completely
unmoored from common sense and sophistry an important element in virtual fact creation.
We're seeing signs of the early breakdown in social cohesion with social unrest in France,
Spain, Hong Kong, Chile, Lebanon, Ecuador. Brexit and the election of Trump despite the
intensity and vitriolic nature of how the media was used against them. The impeachment of
Trump another tool in the desperate attempt to retain and consolidate power. Maybe we're in
the Fourth Turning as Howe & Strauss label it.
"The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist ..."
In the interest of specificity and accountability, where/who in the MSM are asserting
that?
You (PL) are making a serious charge.
Just who is guilty of perpetrating such a blatant falsehood?
well it seems to me that the groundwork is being laid for an authoritarian state - and it
already has sophisticated tools that are unprecedented in their scope and depth and ability
to store data. And the whole enterprise is based on three rules:
1) secrecy - data is restricted to "insiders";
2) deception - the "outsiders" (you know, the citizens) are regarded as a herd of cattle to
be managed - with lies and disinformation so we don't get any ideas;
3) ruthless enforcement to dehumanize and destroy dissent. Just consider the torture and
destruction of Journalist Julian Assange: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Not sure what the appropriate response is but I spend a lot of time at my camp working in
the woods. Thanks, Colonel Lang, for maintaining this site.
Keith Harbaugh
This is my opinion. I am uninterested in proving anything to you. If you listen to what is
said on the MSM (including Fox) it is evident that in the "minds" of the media squirrels
Russia is just the USSR in disguise. Try listening to what they are saying as sub-text.
The request was not just for my benefit, but with the thought that it would be useful to
document the occurrences of such clearly false statements in the media.
It is certainly true that Russia is being demonized in all the MSM I have sampled.
A frequent criticism is that Putin, like Assad, and earlier Saddam and Quadaffi,
is essentially an illegitimate ruler of his country,
ruling through brute force and without the consent of his countrymen.
(Thus the WaPo editorials routinely call Putin a "thug",
just as they call Assad a "butcher".)
I am certainly not endorsing that view, just reporting what I hear and read.
When I hear that, I harken back to my graduate school days,
when the same sort of charges were leveled against America, which was usually spelled
"Amerika", or sometimes "AmeriKKKa", and described as a racist, imperialist, fascist country
whose establishment must be "Smashed".
I believe the core group of people who so wanted a revolution in America in 1970
(which they essentially got, as we have seen over the last 50 years)
are much the same as those now demonizing Russia.
Here is some specificity on their complaints against Russia back then:
They were not opposed to the USSR, or communism.
Many of them were in effect communists.
The cry among many was : "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse" (Herbert Marcuse was a former Brandeis professor who extolled cultural Marxism).
What they did have, in spades, was a feeling that their ancestors had been victimized by the
Czarist regime in Russia,
which, among other supposed sins, had not done enough to prevent pogroms against them.
They seemed to have a deep fear of the Russian people,
based on their long experience with them.
My suspicion (actually, belief) is that the opposition to Putin is based on the fact that
he is sometimes viewed as a throwback to the the Czars,
and that is definitely not something looked upon favorably by many Jews.
"Trump has a balance sheet where a soul should be and that is the basis for the belief
that MBS and/or his "country" are our friends."
Not to defend Trump and his balance sheet mindset with respect to the Saudis, the reality
is that both parties and presidents from George H.W to Bill Clinton to W and Obama have
treated the Saudi monarchy as our "friend", even when they sponsored the terrorists that
attacked us on 9/11.
Tony Blair became a wealthy man after his prime ministership on the back of money thrown
his way by the Arab sheikhs.
It's the same rabid militarism and American exceptionalism. Preserving and expanding the US
neoliberal empire as the top priority. Subservant to Israeli interests as the driving force of
many of his moves, as he depends on Zionist donor money for re-election.
... many of his subordinates have tried to subvert his policies.
Wait ... what? Those 'subordinates' work for Trump. Trump could easily prevent the
subverting of his policies - if he chose to.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Wasn't it Trump that tweeted that he was "locked and loaded" for war with
Iran?
Wasn't it Trump that ordered TWO missile strikes on Syria based on false
pretenses?
Wasn't it Trump that fully supported the Venezuela coup? And approved of illegally
seizing Venezuelan assets?
Wasn't it Trump that violated UN Resolutions by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and
recognizing Golan Heights as Israeli territory? All while drastically curtailing aid to the
Palestinians?
Wasn't it Trump that militarized Space? (He seems rather proud of doing so.)
Furthermore, I don't hear Trump complaining about things like USA not following thru on
commitments made for peace in Korea or USA's terminating the INF Treaty.
Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops who had been protecting the SDF (Syrian
democratic forces) in the northeast of Syria, prompting Kurdish leadership and the Damascus
governed to strike a deal allowing Syrian Arab Army to retake control of the border with Turkey
after nearly six years.
... ... ..
Given that the deep state retains ultimate control of US foreign policy, Trump
is allowed to do and say what he wants – provided it is only within the confines of his
media playpen, safe in the knowledge that his motivations are purely electoral and not really
aimed and upending the foreign-policy consensus of the US establishment.
If we look beyond Trump's histrionics, we can see that the US deep state continues its
illegal stay in Syria, with Trump in reality having no intention of opposing the
military-industrial complex (indeed often appointing its members to serve in his
administration), with these two parties finding a common point of agreement in the alleged
threat posed by Iran.
US troops will only shift near Iraq, looking at disrupting any form of cooperation between
Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran.
Trump's Saudi and Israeli allies in the region have long been conspiring with the Pentagon
to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That said, the possibility of war with Iran does not align well with Trump's focus on
securing a second term. In any such war, Israel and Saudi Arabia would bear the brunt of
hostilities, making pointless their support for Trump. The price of oil would rise sharply,
throwing the financial markets into chaos; and all this would conspire to ensure that Trump
lost the 2020 election. Trump, therefore, has nothing to gain from war and will prefer dialogue
and negotiation with the likes of North Korea, even if it does not bear much fruit.
Trump's main problem lies in the long-term damage his actions and statements may do to the
credibility of the US empire. The photo-op with Kim was criticized by many in mainstream media
for giving credibility to a "dictator". But the anger of the military and intelligence
community really lay in leaving Washington with nowhere to go after Trump's threats of
annihilation only led to negotiations that did not go anywhere.
I have previously written about the effectiveness of Pyongyang's nuclear and conventional
deterrence, something well known to US policy makers, making them careful to avoid exposing
themselves too much such that Pyongyang calls their bluff, thereby revealing to the world that
Washington's bark is worse than its bite. To avoid such an embarrassing situation, Obama and
his predecessors were always careful to refuse to meet with the North Korean leader.
The United States bases much of its military strength on the display of power, advertising
its theoretical ability to annihilate anyone anywhere. By North Korea calling its bluff and
revealing that the most powerful country in the world cannot in actual fact attack it, the
projected image of American invincibility is thus punctured.
Similarly, when Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from the northeast of Syria
(quickly downsized by the Pentagon), and above all gave the green light to Turkey to occupy the
area vacated, the political establishment and mainstream media swung into action to dissuade
Trump from communicating to the world that America does not stick with its allies. Even Fox
News, now siding with the Democrats, started giving wide coverage to Trump's impeachment story,
inviting in the process an angry Twitter response from Trump.
Trump is of course more than aware that a complete US withdrawal from Syria would go against
the interests of Riyadh and Tel Aviv, those who actually have an influence on him.
Turkey's aspirations to occupy the northeast Syria are part of Erdogan's strategy to improve
negotiating positions with Damascus and Moscow with regard to the jihadists in Idlib. Erdogan
hopes to be able to annex Syrian territory and fill them with the jihadists and their families
who lost the war in Syria and who otherwise pose the security risk of invading Turkey from
Idlib. Erdogan seems to have come to some kind of understanding with the US, which has hitherto
been the protector of the SDF.
Erdogan and Trump didn't seem to consider the possibility of the SDF and Damascus finding
common ground, but this is exactly what happened.
The Syrian Arab Army is now in the North East of the country, protecting its borders against
an invading army. Russia and Iran will try and convince Erdogan to downplay the operation in
exchange for some sort of arrangement regarding Idlib. The Syrian government in the near future
should be able to take back the rich oil fields, boosting its economy.
Turkey and the US have have for years armed and financed terrorism in the region, as have
Qatar and Saudi Arabia (in spite of their ideological differences). Even the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) were involved in the destabilization of Syria.
All this chaos is ultimately supervised and directed by the United States, which has for
years been coordinating in the region color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and proxy wars. Any
other interpretation of events would be disingenuous and untruthful.
The withdrawal of US troops from Syria simply reinforces Damascus's position as the only
legitimate authority in Syria, undermines confidence of European allies in the US, and
emphasizes the consistency of Moscow's actions, which has always been opposed to Washington's
chaotic actions in the region.
Amidst this generalized chaos and confusion, Russia, Iran and Syria are trying to put the
house back in order again, which includes the international system where sovereign states are
respected.
The unipolarists have been suffering pronounced setbacks of late. The expensive air-defense
systems of the United States were shown by the Houthis in the last month to be rather
ineffectual; Saudi troops soon after this suffered a humiliating defeat in the south of their
own country; Washington saw its high-tech drone shot down by Iran; and numerous European and
Middle Eastern allies have lost faith in the US, as they watch factions fighting with each
other over control for US foreign policy
The US is the victim of a unipolar world order onto which it desperately hangs without any
thought of letting go, even as the rest of the world inexorably moves towards a multipolar
world order, one that becomes ever more difficult to subdue with every waking day.
Looks like our stable genius" pushed Putin against Erdogan and sided with Erdogan in the
process.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf. ..."
"... There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq. ..."
"... Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops. ..."
"... The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe. ..."
"... Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values. ..."
"... Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet without harming others. ..."
"... The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid situation. ..."
"... The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald Trump, has called the Democrats out on this. ..."
"... Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels (AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history is written in a few years all this will come out. ..."
"... ISIS formed in the chaos that was the Iraq War, neat how you guys never accept blame for anything. ..."
"... The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a 'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal. ..."
"... Our imperialists must have misread Tacitus, because it seems they aspire to making peaceful deserts. ..."
"... Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US politicians (Republican and Democrat). ..."
"... No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite. ..."
"Russia Assumes Mantle of Supreme Power Broker in the Middle East," proclaimed Britain's
Telegraph .
The article began:
"Russia's status as the undisputed power-broker in the Middle East was cemented as Vladimir
Putin continued a triumphant tour of capitals traditionally allied to the U.S."
"Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate" was the title of yet another
Telegraph column. "Putin Seizes on Trump's Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role,"
declared the Financial Times .
The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is
us.
Before concluding that Trump's pullout of the last 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria is America's
Dunkirk, some reflection is needed.
Yes, Putin has played his hand skillfully. Diplomatically, as the Brits say, the Russian
president is "punching above his weight."
He gets on with everyone. He is welcomed in Iran by the Ayatollah, meets regularly with Bibi
Netanyahu, is a cherished ally of Syria's Bashar Assad, and this week was being hosted by the
King of Saudi Arabia and the royal rulers of the UAE. October 2019 has been a triumphal
month.
Yet, consider what Putin has inherited and what his capabilities are for playing power
broker of the Middle East.
He has a single naval base on the Med, Tartus, in Syria, which dates to the 1970s, and a new
air base, Khmeimim, also in Syria.
The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania,
Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and
bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such
panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf.
We have the world's largest economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, and not a
tenth the size of ours.
And now that we are out of Syria's civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with
Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin's lap. He is now the man in the
middle between Turkey and Syria.
He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President
Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds
from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles,
from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.
Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is
unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish
troops.
Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin's
problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.
"Putin is the New King of Syria," ran the op-ed headline in Thursday's Wall Street
Journal.
The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS,
Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred
thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted,
and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.
If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United
States of America, 6,000 miles away?
Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi's Democrats to denounce
Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And
Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.
But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the
northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what
authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?
And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally
to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey's Incirlik air base to attack Turkish
soldiers fighting in Syria?
If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war
for them -- against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran -- why does Congress not declare those
interests and authorize war to secure them?
Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their
Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the
nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining
American values.
If Putin is king of Syria, it is because he was willing to pay the price in blood and
treasure to keep his Russia's toehold on the Med and save his ally Bashar Assad, who would have
gone under without him.
Who dares wins. Now let's see how Putin likes his prize.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no
different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet
without harming others. At a recent interview with Arabic media a UAE journalist tried to
drive a wedge between Russia and Iran in favor of Saudi Kingdom by challenging Putin to
condemn Iran for alleged attacks on Saudi oil installations by Iran.
To which Putin
skillfully replied: "Russia will never be friends 'with one country against another' in the
Middle East". Nor would Putin condemn Iran unless he was presented with clear evidence - not
just accusations - of Iran's guilt. Point in case: Putin does it better than others; sure,
but why is that bad?
Oh of course envy and fear of one being exposed for inept leadership.
Time long overdue to shake hands with Putin and Russia.
https://www.rt.com/russia/o...
I haven't a concern for Russia in the middle east.
Russia is doing the US the biggest unasked favor proving where our friends and allies
loyalties in the middle east lay by forcing them to make choices in the face of shifting
alliances that they wouldn't reveal if the US continued its presence.
Russia is depopulating and it has choke points with China, with Central Asia, with the
middle east and Europe. Russia will eventually not have the population to defend all these
choke points and will eventually withdraw and focus on its own national security. At that
time, I think its possible to see Russia shift its relationship in eastern Europe while
distancing itself from Chinese expansionism that might one day want its old north pacific
territories back (like what is today Vladivostok and Sakhalin).
Depopulating? Where did you get that from? Population decrease in Russia stopped. By the
latest stats it is just about breaking even (death rates = birth rates). Moreover, population
is growing albeit very slowly. Sorry but Russkies won't die out like extinct species. As far
as its own national security; well, the old notion of "Russia is, more or less, a giant gas
station pretending to be a real country." is as dead as Senator McCain, who pretended to know
something about Russia; alas he was sadly and dangerously uninformed.
https://www.forbes.com/site...
The US has troops and a base or more in Syria?
I don't see any Syrian army bases in the US...
And, the US is telling/demanding where the Syrian army come and goes in...Syria?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
You know!?
Oh, now hypocrite neo-con enabler Pelosi and some of the freaky other politicians are
concerned with human lives in Syria? Ha ha
But...not about the lives of children dying in Yemen and Afghanistan and Gaza?
How come?
And, the US is telling Turkey what it had better do with it's border? Also, friends and enemies o' mine,just which entity, nation and group is not a US ally?
Ally? What does that mean?
As if the American people know the hell that words means anymore and as if there's even a
meaning to that. And the American people do not watch the news, read magazines (news) as they
did before.
They don't know what is going on in the world, they gave up.
People under 50 automatically tune world news out, thanks mostly to the phonies at CNN and
the major, basically neo-con supporting networks confusing the public, purposely so that they
don't see the misery that is in the nations of the MId-East thanks to US invasions and
bombings. Just look at cnn-they spend all day talking about what Trump or some politician
said, no coverage of battles overseas, unless it benefits the continuing spinning of the news
for intervention and so on.
The US won't get a grip and stop threatening nation after nation
(while Russia does not) and so, people all over the world are thinking,
you now what, look at how dumb Americans are that they allow people from Obama, Hillary,
Schumer, Pelosi, Graham and more to conduct foreign policy that makes enemies for America
daily. And don't forget Cheney and that group, too from before. These people are actually an
insult to America.
Compare how the leaders of Russia and America talk and conduct themselves.
Russia has Lavrov, the gentleman diplomat, the US has Pompeo and the likes of Bolton and
Kushner, the Israeli lobbyist and the Presidents son in law.
How does a so-called Republic allow the President to have his daughter and Kushner, her
husband, to be security/foreign policy advisers. You're really losing it, America.
"But those same elites appear to lack the
confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they
contend are vital American interests and defining American values."
No, they don't lack "confidence". They've got all the confidence in the world. What they
lack is competence, integrity, and credibility with the American people and the rest of the
world. They have dragged America through the mud in the Middle East for nearly two decades.
They transformed the once proud American military and diplomatic corps into a customer
service operation for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
We don't need more lectures and directives about "our interests" and "Western values" that
always turn out to be Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests and values. We need new foreign
policy elites, free of the current elite's miserable record of failure, corruption, and
subordination to foreign interests. Above all, we need to get out of the Mideast swamps that
the younger Bush and Obama pushed us into, bring our troops back to America, start defending
America and American interests again.
How simple and true what U've said. Sounds like a sound position and logical too. So why is
this not happening? The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's
USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that
revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the
MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid
situation.
The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama
administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald
Trump, has called the Democrats out on this.
Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels
(AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when
Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not
backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history
is written in a few years all this will come out.
The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a
'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria
partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal.
Trump is indeed our Dorian Gray, he is just outwardly reflecting our narcissism, 'if we
don't get to do it then no one else can'.
Obvious Pat we have no consistent foreign policy in the region since we inherited the mantle
from the Brit Empire post WW 2. Oil and Israel were a marketable justification for our wars
and changing partners ( regime change ), for a long time. Now neither is relevant. We have
all the fossil fuels we need, and Israel is all powerful.. Long term I doubt the Russians
will make a difference, in the Muslim quest to resurrect the Ottoman Empire. We have lost too
many of our sons and daughters. get out.
Trump is a genius.
At the moment, Syria is a poisoned chalice to anyone accepting responsibility for it.
Russia is only there because they cannot get a naval base in any other Mediterranean
country.
When, or if peace is achieved in Syria, it will be the US that swoops in to market the
brands the Arabs love. The Syrians won't be buying Russian products.
Name an American brand the "Arabs love": Toyota, Lexis, Rollex, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic,
Samsung, iPhone (made in China)? Which one(s). While their infrastructure and basic
technology are and will continue to be Russian.
Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an
intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US
politicians (Republican and Democrat).
No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the
reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite.
The Middle East is home to oil, terrorism, access points for maritime transportation (The Red
Sea, The Bosphorus, Suez Canal, Persian Gulf). It is strategically important. It was a
mistake for Obama to leave Iraq before there was a stable situation and it is a mistake for
Trump to leave before there is a stable situation.
To say, "Just let them all fight it out" is foolhardy and likely just a rationalization
for your mistake to support the narcissistic fool in the White House.
I don't think Putin is going to be unhappy about it. The various powers of the ME will now go
to him for favors, and he will get favors in return. I doubt US interests will be among them.
Putin said, I've got your no fly zone right here. After Russian deployment of the SA400's,
america had no choice but to begin withdrawal.
And kind of missing from Buchanan's list of
putin friends, is erdogan himself.
So, it will be interesting to see what happens now. Putin
holds all the cards and is in the best position of anybody on the planet to broker a deal
between assad and erdogan. Part of that deal will likely be very bad for those who threw
their lot in with the US.
Turkey is not a small country and has an enormous military.
Buchanan himself said that we should stay out of Syria and let the Turks deal with ISIS.
But
they were too smart for that, and had their own coup to worry about. I have always thought
that the US should have brokered a homeland for the kurds. It would have been hard, but now
it is impossible.
Turkey is now a client state of Russia much more than a member of NATO. At
least in appearance. They now buy SA400's and SU-57's from mother russia.
Who supplies and
maintains your best weapon systems indicates who your real allies are. What has the US lost?
I would say we lost anybody across the globe that we ever hoped would ally with us against
the new sino-russian superpower. Russia has unlimited space and resources. China has
unlimited people and no limits on its technical growth and markets. The US? We are the
biggest debtor third world nation that has ever existed. But hey, we have the most stable
genius as our president, and the sky is the limit for what he will accomplish other than
permanent tax cuts for corporations. Right? The right again.
Except for 2 wrongs, they
wouldn't even exist. Can faith overcome inconvenient truth? Real faith probably could by
accepting inconvenient truth. But real faith is mostly dead. It was replaced with tax free
religiosity and assault weaponry sponsored by corporate fascist government. I watched it
happen. And his story is being rewritten in days or weeks instead of years and decades.
It's not often that I would agree with Pat B. Essentially never.
But on this point, yes. If Putin wants the Middle East, by all means proceed.
That region has been messing up our politics for literally my whole life - It is most
decidedly not a Promised Land for the United States. Let the Saudis and the
Iranians and the Russians and the Turks fight it out. It should be lovely. The Israelis call
sell weapons to all of them.
Thank you for this small bit of obvious wisdom, Mr. Buchanan. Your insights are very common
sensical here, and thus, most valuable. Too bad they will mostly fall on the deaf ears of our
moronic "Elites".
I believe Obama said that Putin would be overwhelmed in Syria. However, Putin has overseen an
excellent strategy of picking an area of insurgents, militarily pounding them, then offering
them free passage to a safe area (Idlib). After doing this across Syria, he and Assad now
have all of the jihadist groups in one place where they can pound them senseless or just sit
back and wait for them to start shooting each other.
Trump did not screw up the Kurds' clearing of ISIS above the Euphrates. Now he has given
Putin and Assad the results of that. I expect the PA team will stabilize that area in short
order.
So, Idlib and NW Syria will be a cauldron for a while. Now Al Tanf is the only insurgent
holdout. Be interesting to see how that unfolds.
Lest Trumpland forget, there is a reason we got involved in the region. Jihadists can and
will use neglect to later come after us.
Putin shows us how its done. 3 billion or so, find good Muslims (anyone other than Sunni
islamists) and help them blow up, conquer, and occasionally repress the bad Muslims.
We spent several TRILLION ourselves and thousands of American lives for nothing. We never
had a single achievable objective in any of these conflicts.
Donald is a moron for selling out the Kurds, who it cost nothing to back, to Turkey but
the DC elites made this inevitable by refusing to cut a deal with Assad for the Kurds. He's
been the only realistic option for a long time now.
That's it, I quit. I can't be expected to compete with this.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 9, 2019
His Excellency
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
President of the Republic of Turkey
Ankara
Dear Mr. President:
Let's work out a good deal! You don't want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of
people, and I don't want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy -- and I will.
I've already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.
1 have worked hard to solve some of your problems. Don't let the world down. You can make
a great deal. General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make
concessions that they would never have made in the past. I am confidentially enclosing a copy
of his letter to me, just received.
History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It
will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy.
Don't be a fool!
Trump has opened the door to a
Turkish incursion into Syria:
Donald Trump has given the green light to a contentious Turkish military operation in
north-east Syria against the main US allies in the battle with Isis, triggering alarm in
Washington and Europe and plunging the campaign against jihadis into uncertainty.
The US has started withdrawing troops from the vicinity of a looming Turkish incursion,
following Mr Trump's phone call with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president, on Sunday
night.
The White House said the US military, which has about 1,000 troops in Syria, would not
"support or be involved in the operation" that Turkey has repeatedly threatened to launch
against US-backed Kurdish militias. In a statement, it said US forces would "no longer be in
the immediate area".
Removing U.S. forces from the area avoids having them caught up in the Turkish military
operation. Unless the U.S. was prepared to oppose Turkey and defend the YPG, it's not clear
what purpose would be served by keeping those forces where they were. Our absurd Syria policy
has put us in the untenable position of trying to keep the peace between mutually hostile
"allies" for years, and eventually the U.S. was going to have to choose which "ally" it was
going to side with. It is worth remembering that Turkey is a treaty ally and the YPG is at most
a proxy that has proven to be useful over the last few years. If the U.S. is going to favor one
or the other, it was never likely that our government would take the side of the YPG over
Turkey.
This dilemma wouldn't exist if the U.S. hadn't been waging an illegal war in Syria for the
past five years, and this should teach us to think very carefully about whether we should
support armed groups in a conflict where we have few clear interests. The U.S. has a long
history of supporting and then discarding armed proxies, and this will keep repeating itself as
long as the U.S. gets involved in unnecessary wars that it will sooner or later quit. The
solution isn't to use U.S. forces as a buffer with no end in sight, as quite a few critics of
this decision seem to want, but to refrain from sending U.S. forces into conflicts that don't
matter for U.S. security in the first place. Eventually our forces are going to leave places on
the other side of the planet, and it is unrealistic and unfair to make promises of a more
enduring commitment that everyone has to know won't be kept.
Having said all that, the administration has handled all this very poorly. Like almost every
Trump decision, the decision was made hastily and without coordinating with any of the people
that would be affected by it. It isn't clear that all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Syria
anytime soon, so it is possible that the illegal deployment there will continue somewhere else.
And it wouldn't be a Trump foreign policy decision if it didn't involve making insane threats
about destroying a country if its government does something he doesn't like:
Trump clearly wants to have things both ways, but it won't work. He is obviously wrong to
threaten to "destroy and obliterate" the Turkish economy, and the language in his statement is
deranged. Anyone who refers to his own "great and unmatched wisdom" obviously doesn't have any
wisdom to speak of, and it shows in this unhinged threat. For one thing, the threat isn't
likely to deter Erdogan from ordering an attack on Kurdish forces. The Turkish government sees
the YPG as part of an intolerable threat, and they aren't going to be coerced into changing
their position on that. Following through on the threat would mean inflicting punishment on the
people of Turkey for something their government has done, which would both inflame hostility to
the U.S. and harm tens of millions of people without achieving anything.
These are all the
ugly results of an absurd Syria policy and an illegal war that Trump escalated when he came
into office. It should serve as a warning to future administrations about the pitfalls of
involving the U.S. in wars we don't need to fight and throwing our support behind "allies" that
we will eventually leave in the lurch.
Update: The movement of U.S. forces is just a redeployment inside Syria:
US troops are *not* leaving Syria and will simply be moved out of area Turkey may attack,
senior administration official says. Number moving is 50 special operators.
Rep. Justin Amash says it best:
He's not bringing home the troops. He's not ending any war. Stop falling for it.
"...if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off
limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!)."
WHO SAYS THIS?
Forget the self-aggrandizing wording, which is beyond satire... Turkey are a treaty
ally! He's casually musing and threatening, in public, about "obliterating" the economy of
a treat ally!
It's going to be fascinating to see what the American history books have to say about
this time we are living through.
BTW, just as background: apparently Trump's threat to "destroy and obliterate" the Turkish
economy relates to a massive fine the US is "entitled" to assess on some Turkish interests
regarding a huge money-laundering scheme to evade financial sanctions on dealing with Iran.
Which fine we have not yet officially levied out of the goodness of our hearts...
Excellent points. As soon as all this started hitting the fan, I was reminded of the last
impeachment of a POTUS; that time the US illegally (and amorally) destroyed Yugoslavia and
ensured that religious fundamentalist terrorist proxies would have safe havens in Eastern
Europe.
I think you're on the right track vis a vis looming war against Iran.
"Thirteen drones moved according to common combat battle deployment, operated by a single
crew. During all this time the American Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane patrolled the
Mediterranean Sea area for eight hours," he noted. Read also Three layers of Russian air defense at Hmeymim air base in
Syria When the drones met with the electronic countermeasures of the Russian systems, they
switched to a manual guidance mode, he said. "Manual guidance is carried out not by some
villagers, but by the Poseidon-8, which has modern equipment. It undertook manual control," the
deputy defense minister noted.
"When these 13 drones faced our electronic warfare screen, they moved away to some distance,
received the corresponding orders and began to be operated out of space and receiving help in
finding the so-called holes through which they started penetrating. Then they were destroyed,"
Fomin reported.
"This should be stopped as well: in order to avoid fighting with the high-technology weapons
of terrorists and highly-equipped terrorists it is necessary to stop supplying them with
equipment," the deputy defense minister concluded.
The Russian Defense Ministry earlier said that on January 6 militants in Syria first
massively used drones in the attack on the Russian Hmeymim airbase and the Russian naval base
in Tartus. The attack was successfully repelled: seven drones were downed, and control over six
drones was gained through electronic warfare systems. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed
that the solutions used by the militants could be received only from a technologically advanced
country and warned about the danger of repeating such attacks in any country of the
world.
The forum
The eighth Beijing Xiangshan Forum on security will run until October 26 in Beijing. It was
organized by the Chinese Ministry of Defense, China Association for Military Science (CAMS) and
China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS). Representatives for defense
ministries, armed forces and international organizations, as well as former military officials,
politicians and scientists from 79 countries are taking part in the forum.
Who says Mr Trump is unpredictable? Is there anybody expected anything else from Mr Trump
when it comes to picking his advisers or making thoughtful decisions? Let's be serious, Mr
Trump did not pick Mr Robert O'Brien. The Bolton, Pompeo, Pence triumvirate picked Trump's
NSA; naturally.
"... Someone should tell Mike that our credibility as a nation is further damaged with claims that are in need of supporting evidence. ..."
"... Did Fat Mike rub the head camel jockey's glowing orb? ..."
"... America is a bomb-happy empire - we kill illiterate peasants and destroy mud-walled villages. We are really good at it. ..."
"... Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation. ..."
"... No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution on our own shores. ..."
Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United
States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation.
I am pro military and I have many friends who have served or currently serve. And I have
kids. I'm not sending my kids to kill Iranians for the Saudi's, for Israel or for any other
fucked-up nation in the Middle East. And I don't want 18-year-old American kids getting
killed or wounded for those ungrateful ***** either.
No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution
on our own shores.
"... Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen. Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution, they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ..."
"... "Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the region." ..."
"... "The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued. ..."
"... Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing a successful bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen. ..."
"... "It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest between the Saudis and Iranians." ..."
"... "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.), who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran. ..."
"... "This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not a walk in the park." ..."
"... "In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's desulphurization capacity out of commission. ..."
"... "This little accident was designed to be maximally disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil in the long run. ..."
"... On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump understands." ..."
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis pointed out that the puncture marks do not actually show
the origin of the attack. "Missiles can fly from almost anywhere. They have the ability to
maneuver! And certainly drones can, too," the Defense Priorities senior fellow told the
National Interest . "There hasn't been the time to do an actual analysis on the
ground, so let's wait and see."
Mark Latham, managing partner at the London-based analysis firm Commodities Intelligence,
told the National Interest that the puncture marks pointed to a cruise missile with no
explosive warhead. Removing the payload would allow the missile to carry more fuel and launch
from farther away from its target.
... ... ...
"Mr. X is a sophisticated fellow. He's sourced some Iranian cruise missiles.
He's removed the explosive payload. He's replaced the explosive payload with fuel," he said.
"So this isn't your twenty dollar Amazon drone. This is a sophisticated military operation."
"The culprit behind the Abqaiq attack is most definitely the Islamic Republic, either
directly or through one of its proxies," argued Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
"The attack fits the pattern of Iran signaling to the Gulf states that if it can't get its
oil out, it will cause their oil exports to become collateral damage," Koduvayur told the National Interest . "It's because of how strong our coercive financial tools are that
Iran is resorting to attacks like this: it's lashing out."
Violating an Obama-era agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear research program, the Trump
administration imposed massive sanctions on Iran's oil industry beginning in May 2018. The goal
of this "maximum pressure" campaign was to force Iran to accept a "better" deal. Since then,
Iranian forces have captured a British oil tanker and allegedly sabotaged tankers from other
countries.
There were some signals that Trump was planning to use the ongoing United Nations General
Assembly in New York to open a new
diplomatic channel with Iran, especially after the
firing of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the weekend attack sent Trump
into reverse.
"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their 'airspace'
when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a
very big lie," he said in a Monday morning Twitter post, referring to a June incident
when Iranian and American forces almost went to war. "Now they say that they had nothing to do
with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We'll see?"
He also hinted at a violent U.S. response.
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of
this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" Trump wrote on Sunday.
"Saudi Arabia is not a formal treaty ally of ours, so there are no international agreements
that obligate us to come to their defense," John Glaser, director of foreign-policy studies at
the CATO Institute, stated. "This does not amount to a clear and present danger to the United
States, so no self-defense justification is relevant. He would therefore need authorization
from Congress."
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had mixed reactions to the attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed putting "on the table an attack on Iranian oil
refineries" in order to "break the regime's back." His press office did not respond to a
follow-up question from the National Interest asking whether the president would have
the authority to do so.
Amy Grappone, spokeswoman for Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), told the National Interest
that the Senator "will support an appropriate and proportionate response" after "studying the
latest intelligence pertaining to Iran's malign activities, including these recent attacks in
Saudi Arabia."
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, condemned the attack with
a backhanded insult towards Saudi Arabia. "Despite some ongoing policy differences with the
kingdom, no nation should be subjected to these kinds of attacks on it soil and against its
people," he wrote on Twitter, declining to name Iran as the culprit.
Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced
their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen.
Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution,
they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder
reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The
president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin
(D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi
Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain
its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the
region."
"The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with
Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi
Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued.
Asked how he would vote on a declaration of war, the senator told the National
Interest : "Let's hope it does not come to that. Congress has not authorized war against
Iran. The majority voted to engage them diplomatically to slow their nuclear ambitions. The
international community is ready to work with the U.S. again to ease economic pressure on Iran
in exchange for their restraint. We are at a dangerous precipice."
In a statement emailed to the National Interest and posted to Twitter, Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.) was even more direct: "The US should never go to war to protect Saudi oil."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing
a successful bill
to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override
the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread
explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen.
"It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual
defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And
frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long
term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest
between the Saudis and Iranians."
But the reaction did not fall neatly along party lines.
"Iran is one of the most dangerous state sponsors of terrorism. This may well be the thing
that calls for military action against Iran, if that's what the intelligence supports," said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a Monday interview with Fox News. Others pointed out that
attacking Iran would contradict Trump's own principles.
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic
presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.),
who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud
with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran.
"This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States
needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he
told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the
Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not
a walk in the park."
Davis agreed with Paul's assessment. "There's too many people who have lost touch with
understanding what war is all about. They think it's easy," he told the National
Interest . "Just imagine this. What we go ahead and do this, and Iran makes good on their
threats, and American warships get sunk in the Gulf?" "This is not America's fight," he
concluded. "The American armed forces are not on loan as a Saudi defense force."
"There's another claim that the impact on oil markets is sufficient to impact the vital U.S.
interest in the free flow of energy coming out of that region, but that argument quickly
descends into absurdity when we remember that the Trump administration has been trying to
zero-out Iranian oil exports, for a host of spurious reasons," Glaser told the National
Interest . "Washington is also aggressively sanctioning Venezuela, making it harder for
Caracas to bring oil to market, too. If we really cared about the supply of oil, we wouldn't be
doing this."
In any case, the attack may not have affected oil markets in such a straightforward way.
Latham says that the attack struck an oil desulphurization facility. At the moment,
desulphurized fuel is in high demand from the shipping industry, which is rushing to comply
with new international environmental regulations.
"In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping
fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur
fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham
explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's
desulphurization capacity out of commission.
"This little accident was designed to be maximally
disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is
really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous
stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might
delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil
in the long run.
On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's
not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy
infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense
capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale
war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what
that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump
understands."
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest.
"... American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe. ..."
"... A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some ..."
"... U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is: ..."
"... Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be. ..."
"... Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts. ..."
"... The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. ..."
"... Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership, resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense. ..."
"... any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it. ..."
"... Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan. ..."
"... Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only from reward and punishment. ..."
"... I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power. ..."
"... Empires have a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion. ..."
"... What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure. ..."
"... We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt. ..."
"... I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/ hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets. ..."
"... The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged. ..."
"... It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The money and power is too corrupting. ..."
"... I'm not sure that most of the citizens in those European countries we occupy actually support our permanent military presence in their countries. ..."
"... The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking. ..."
Stephen Wertheim explains
what is required to bring an end to unnecessary and open-ended U.S. wars overseas:
American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe.
Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do
what they most resist: end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.
Any government that presumes to be the world's hegemon will be fighting somewhere almost all of the time, because its political
leaders will see everything around the world as their business and it will see every manageable threat as a challenge to their "leadership."
A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire
itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some.
U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at
the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to
use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is:
Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military
force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be.
Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and
intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts.
Our government's frenetic interventionism and meddling for the last thirty years hasn't made our country the slightest bit more secure,
but it has sown chaos and instability across at least two continents. Wertheim continues:
Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate
deployment of force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy ones.
The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the
idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous
goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. Constant warfare achieves nothing except to provide an excuse
for more of the same. The longer that a war drags on, one would think that it should become easier to bring it to an end, but we
have seen that it becomes harder for both political and military leaders to give up on an unwinnable conflict when it has become
an almost permanent part of our foreign policy. For many policymakers and pundits, what matters is that the U.S. not be perceived
as losing, and so our military keeps fighting without an end in sight for the sake of this "not losing."
Wertheim adds:
Despite Mr. Trump's rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that "our military dominance must be unquestioned"
-- even though no one believes he has a strategy to use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in
itself.
Seeking to maintain this dominance is ultimately unsustainable, and as it becomes more expensive and less popular it will also
become increasingly dangerous as we find ourselves confronted with even more capable adversaries. For the last thirty years, the
U.S. has been fortunate to be secure and prosperous enough that it could indulge in decades of fruitless militarism, but that luck
won't hold forever. It is far better if the U.S. give up on hegemony and the militarism that goes with it on our terms.
Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership,
resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense.
Truth be told, as your article states, any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is
considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it.
It makes us less safe. Isolationism did not cause 9/11. In the 90's when we were being attacked by Al Qaeda we were too distracted
dancing on Russia's bones to pay any attention to them. While Al Qaeda was attacking our troops and blowing up our buildings we
were bombing Serbia, expanding NATO and reelecting Yeltsin and sticking it to Iran.
It goes beyond that. Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan.
We later abandoned them when the job was done: a pack hound we trained, pushed to fight, then left in the forest abandoned and
starved. Then we wonder why it came back growling.
Isolationism may not be the most effective solution to things, but I'll admit a LOT of pain, on ourselves and others, would've
never happened if we took that policy.
Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only
from reward and punishment.
So far, they only have been rewarded for their crimes.
While I think the economic basis of the Soviet Union was faulty, and it had lost the popular support it might have had in early
days, the USSR's military aggression, particularly in Afghanistan, was a major precipitating factor in its downfall. It would
have eventually crumbled, I believe, anyway, but had they taken a less aggressive stance I think they would have lasted several
decades longer.
Is it really in our hands to actually disengage though? Is this politically feasible?
How does this work? The US gets up one day and says "We're pulling all of our troops out of Saudi and SK. No more funding for
Israel! No bolstering the pencil-thin government of Afghanistan. All naval bases abroad will be shut down. Longstanding alliances
and interests be damned!"
I sympathize very strongly with the notion that we must use military force wisely and with restraint, and perhaps even that
the post-WW2 expansion abroad was a mistake, but I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without
destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power.
This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not, and barring some military or economic disaster that forces a strategic
realignment or retreat (like WW2 did for the old European powers) I don't know how you practically pull back. Empires have
a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion.
What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our
debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure.
We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending
and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt.
Sure. That doesn't mean American withdrawal would create less instability in toto. Maybe it would. Who knows? We mortals can only
take counterfactuals so far.
I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/
hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets.
The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled
congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged.
It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The
money and power is too corrupting.
Maybe, just maybe, however, as we are at $22 trillion in debt and counting (just saw a total tab for F-35 of $1.5 trillion)
that the money will run out, and zero interest rate financing is not all that awesome, this unsustainable mindlessness will be
curtailed or even better, changed.
It's not really hegemony. Old-fashioned empires took over territory in order to gain resources and labor. We haven't done that
since 1920. Especially since 1990 we've been making war purely to destroy and obliterate. When our war is done there's nothing
left to dominate or own.
Domestically we've been using politics and media and controlled culture to do the same thing. Create "terrorists" and "extremists"
on "two" "sides", set them loose, enjoy the resulting chaos. Chaos is the declared goal, and it's been working beautifully for
70 years.
China is expanding empire in Africa and Asia the old-fashioned way, improving farms and factories in order to have exclusive
purchase of their output.
Could not have said it better. "On our terms" would mean that Europe is forced to take matters of military security in it's own
hands, I hope. But chanches are slim, history shows empires must fall hard and break a leg or so first before anything changes.
Iran, Saudi-arabia, the greater ME, China, the trade wars and the world economy are coming together for a perfect storm it seems.
The problem with US hegemony is Israel. Look around the world. Neither Japan nor South Korea nor Vietnam nor Philippines nor India
nor Indonesia nor Australia (the same can be said for South and Central America, Mexico, Canada and Europe) require a significant
US presence.
None of them are asking for a greater presence in their country (except Poland) while being perfectly happy with
our alliance, joint defense, trade, intelligence and technology sharing.
It is only Israel and Saudi Arabia which are constantly pushing the US into middle eastern wars and quagmires that we have
no national interest. Trump sees the plain truth that the US is in jeopardy of losing its manufacturing and its technological
lead to China. If we (US) dont start to rebuild our infrastructure, our defense, our cities, our communities, our manufacturing,
our educational system then our nation is going to follow California into a 3rd world totalitarian state dominated by democratic
voting immigrants whose only affiliation to our country and our constitutional republic is a welfare check, free govt programs
and incestuous govt contracts which funnel govt dollars into the re-election PACs of democratic / liberal elected officials.
The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking.
Defeat is now when war's income streams end. The only wars that are lost, are those that end, defeating the winning of war profits.
War, as a financial success story, has become an end in itself, and an empire that looks for more to wage means some mighty big
wages with more profit opportunities. Victory is to be avoided - red ink being spilled through peace detestable - and blood spilled
profitably to be encouraged.
The conscientious judges of the European Court of Human Rights published a judgement a
fortnight ago which utterly exploded the version of events promulgated by Western governments
and media in the case of the late Mr Magnitskiy. Yet I can find no truthful report of the
judgement in the mainstream media at all.
The myth is that Magnitskiy was an honest rights campaigner and accountant who discovered
corruption by Russian officials and threatened to expose it, and was consequently imprisoned
on false charges and then tortured and killed. A campaign over his death was led by his
former business partner, hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who wanted massive compensation for
Russian assets allegedly swindled from their venture. The campaign led to the passing of the
Magnitskiy Act in the United States, providing powers for sanctioning individuals responsible
for human rights abuses, and also led to matching sanctions being developed by the EU.
However the European Court of Human Rights has found, in judging a case brought against
Russia by the Magnitskiy family, that the very essence of this story is untrue. They find
that there was credible evidence that Magnitskiy was indeed engaged in tax fraud, in
conspiracy with Browder, and he was rightfully charged. The ECHR also found there was
credible evidence that Magnitskiy was indeed a flight risk so he was rightfully detained. And
most crucially of all, they find that there was credible evidence of tax fraud by Magnitskiy
and action by the authorities "years" before he started to make counter-accusations of
corruption against officials investigating his case.
This judgement utterly explodes the accepted narrative, and does it very succinctly:
Pompeo is just MIC lobbyst who got position of the Secretary of State due to Trump
incompetence of pressure from donors like Adelson. Nothing good can come from this strange choice
of warmonger and neocon hawk, not that different from Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... It may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region have gone from being an intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic vulnerability. ..."
"... The first priority was to deny the Iranian leadership resources. Previous administration taken a different approach. It said olly olly oxen free, here's all the money you can possibly stand to build out your terror campaign, to build your nuclear weapons system, to take nuclear physicists, all of the things that money can deliver – terror against Israel out of Hizballah and from Syria. Our – the first proposition for our campaign was to deny wealth and resources for the Iranian leadership, and it has been enormously successful in doing so. You can see it. Hizballah is passing the tin cup. ..."
It may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region have gone from being an
intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic vulnerability.
For hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, American power, as the Bolshevik adage goes,
cannot fail, it can only be failed. For many of his ilk, the superiority of American power
means the willingness to project it is the only thing needed to earn the capitulation of foes
and the only way America loses is if it chooses to relent. Donald Trump, however, watched
George W. Bush's presidency burn in the Iraq war and is unlikely to embrace the chaos of war
heading into an election year. President Trump would be wise to heed the lessons of the most
recent volatile security episode in the Persian Gulf region, especially as it pertains to his
administration's campaign against Tehran.
... ... ...
Without the basic ability to guard against even crude air assets, any notion of the United
States empowering its regional network to dictate terms to Iranian allies with military action
seems impractical. The credibility of U.S. anti-missile capabilities were
already in question . For Saudi Arabia and hawks inside the U.S. government, the notion
that a tribal force like the Houthis could reach into their territory and engage in this kind
of tactical action is militarily embarrassing and practically discrediting from a policy
standpoint.
...If it is conceivable that Iranian cruise missiles -- the newest and least tested section
of Iran's missile fleet -- flew across the militarized Persian Gulf and evaded both Saudi and
American sensors and air-defenses to hit an oil facility, then how much safer are U.S. forces
in the region?
...Add to this the survivability and precision that Pompeo is now attributing to Iranian
missiles and the conclusion very well may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf
region have gone from being an intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic
vulnerability.
... ... ...
Pompeo has been on a months-long media campaign promoting, among other
things, what he describes as the success of the "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. But
Pompeo's primary argument for the success of the anti-Iran efforts centers on the narrative
that U.S. sanctions have severely damaged Iran's alliance network in the region. Consider the
way he framed
the issue to a right-wing talk show host in July:
The first priority was to deny the Iranian leadership resources. Previous administration
taken a different approach. It said olly olly oxen free, here's all the money you can possibly
stand to build out your terror campaign, to build your nuclear weapons system, to take nuclear
physicists, all of the things that money can deliver – terror against Israel out of
Hizballah and from Syria. Our – the first proposition for our campaign was to deny wealth
and resources for the Iranian leadership, and it has been enormously successful in doing so.
You can see it. Hizballah is passing the tin cup.
...The attack on the Saudi refiner disrupted Pompeo's public victory lap in a particularly
bright and striking way.
... ... ...
Simply put, Washington's hopes to stop Iran from supporting its allies by pressing the
Iranian economy is unlikely to work. Iran's support for its alliance network is largely
dismissed in Washington as a frivolous imperial project that Iran can simply choose to abandon.
But for Iran, its non-state allies are a core national-security issue and will, therefore, be
prioritized in budgetary considerations especially when tensions are high. Iran's support for
non-state actors, like Hezbollah, are also not financially intensive and therefore can continue
under sanctions.
Alireza Ahmadi is a researcher and analyst focused on U.S. foreign policy towards the
Middle East. His work has been published by the National
Interest ,
The
Hill and Al-Monitor
. Follow him on Twitter @AliAhmadi_Iran.
"Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply,"
declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America's credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating
attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom's oil production, 5.7 million
barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear,
in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe
was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!"
Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones
to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to
carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim,
"There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
But while the Houthis claim credit,
Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo's charge, that
the U.S. has simply
replaced a policy of "maximum pressure" with a policy of "maximum deceit." Tehran is calling us
liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on
the Saudis' crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation,
leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
Tehran being behind Saturday's strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out
of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and
pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility
at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.
According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis
claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing
sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from
Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did
explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of
time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.
Given Pompeo's public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering next week may be a dead
letter.
The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the
call for a commensurate response is put directly to our "locked-and-loaded" president.
If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?
For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for
four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country
attacking them.
Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi
war in Yemen.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite
militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have
been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired
on Saturday -- shutting down about 6% of world oil production -- imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war
would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military
equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the
kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of
war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran's oil refineries to "break the
regime's back,"
while Sen. Rand Paul contends that "there's no reason the superpower of
the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran."
Divided again:
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war
with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
Does he mean the treat of de-dollarization? The USA military is just an the enforcement arm
of Wall Street banks.
Notable quotes:
"... "It is increasingly clear that Russia and China want to disrupt the international order by gaining a veto over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions," ..."
"It is increasingly clear that Russia and China want to disrupt the international order
by gaining a veto over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions," Esper
said, seemingly unaware of the absurd hypocrisy of his words.
Thanks to Mattis and company, Trump's purported desire to withdraw from fruitless Middle
Eastern wars has been stifled, the result being business as usual for the
military-industrial-complex and national security state. And why not? Since resigning his post,
Mattis has burst through the "revolving door" of the arms industry,
reclaiming his seat on the board of the fifth largest defense contractor, General Dynamics.
Albert Einstein famously (and perhaps apocryphally) said , "The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." He might just as
easily have been describing the career of James Mattis, who has been proven wrong again and
again and again, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria.
You have to be mad to let them rope you into that system for so long and so deep. Go and
join up, shoot a few people so you have something to brag about in the pub, but leave early
so the killing frenzies do not define you.
Tribalism is what he calls it? It's the minions pushing back America's policies and
monopolies. Costly for Americans, deadly slavery for others!
The problem is not Bolton. It is Trump. Bolton is a well known neocon, who pushed for Iraq
war (which makes his a war criminal) and founded PNAC. So his credentials as a warmonger were
clear. He was/is a typical MIC prostitute, or agent of influence in more politically correct
terms.
But any President who hired Bolton deliberately ositioned himself as a wrecking ball. Such an
art of the deal. Hiring Bolton to a large extent justified Russiagate, because such a President
is clear and present danger for the USA as a country. For the physical existence of this country
and civilization on this territory. All bets for a realistic foreign policy are off. They are
just wishful thinking.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton would rather blow up Iran than talk to its leaders, engagement Trump has said numerous times he is more than happy to consider (maybe as soon as next week's U.N. General Assembly meeting). ..."
"... On Venezuela, Trump seems to have soured on pushing Nicolás Maduro from power, even as Bolton refers to Caracas as part of the "troika of tyranny." Bolton's obsession with getting North Korea denuclearized in one fell swoop -- an approach that came crashing down on Trump's head during his second summit with Kim Jong-un in February -- is far more likely to lead to an end of diplomacy than an end to Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program (an uphill climb if there ever was one). ..."
"... Bolton, prickly as a porcupine in dealing with colleagues, had long been under Trump's skin. NBC News reports that the two men had a shouting match behind closed doors the night before Bolton's resignation. ..."
"... Whatever finally pushed Bolton out the door, however, is far less relevant than where Trump goes from here. He will announce a new national security adviser next week, and the Washington parlor game is already swirling with names. ..."
"... We don't know who Bolton's replacement will be, but we do know what he or she needs to do: dump most of the previous regime's ideas in the garbage and start over with strategies that actually have a chance at success. ..."
"... Trump needs an adviser who is willing to engage in a pragmatic negotiation and be prepared for uncomfortable but necessary bargaining. He needs someone who will help him end wars -- like the 18-year-long quagmire in Afghanistan -- that have gone on aimlessly and without purpose. ..."
Bolton's is an extreme black-and-white view of the world: if you aren't an ally of the
United States, you are an adversary who needs a boot on your neck in the form of U.S. military
force or economic sanctions. The second- and third-order strategic consequences are no obstacle
in Bolton's mind. Why go through the humiliating spectacle of negotiations when you can simply
bomb Iran's
nuclear facilities or take out the Kim regime by
force ?
Diplomacy, after all, is for wimps, spineless State Department bureaucrats, and appeasers.
If the boss is insisting on diplomacy, then demand the moon, stars, and
everything in between before offering a nickel of sanctions relief.
This is how John Bolton made his career: as the proverbial wrecking ball of arms control
agreements -- and indeed agreements of any kind. And he makes no excuses for it. Indeed, he
takes prideful ownership of his views, seeing anyone who disagrees with him or who isn't on his
level as a weasel. Before Bolton joined the Trump administration as national security adviser,
he was the short-lived ambassador to the United Nations and the undersecretary of state for
arms control, where he attempted to get an intelligence analyst removed
for disagreeing with his position on Cuba's alleged biological weapons program.
All of this is why so many of us were worried and confused when President Trump asked Bolton
to serve as his national security adviser last year. The two men could not have more
fundamental disagreements on foreign policy. While both laugh at the U.N. and international
organizations more broadly, they diverge paths on some of the weightiest issues on the docket.
Bolton would rather blow up Iran than talk to its leaders, engagement Trump has said
numerous times he is more than happy to consider (maybe as soon as next week's U.N. General
Assembly meeting).
On Venezuela, Trump seems to have soured on pushing Nicolás Maduro from power,
even as Bolton refers to Caracas as part of the "troika of tyranny." Bolton's obsession with
getting North Korea denuclearized in one fell swoop -- an approach that came crashing down on
Trump's head during his second summit with Kim Jong-un in February -- is far more likely to
lead to an end of diplomacy than an end to Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program (an uphill climb
if there ever was one).
Trump grew tired of Bolton the same way he grew tired of other staffers. Rex Tillerson,
James Mattis, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly were all liked by the
president at one time, only to be fired or convinced to resign. Bolton, prickly as a
porcupine in dealing with colleagues, had long been under Trump's skin. NBC News reports that
the two men had a shouting match behind closed doors the night before Bolton's
resignation.
Whatever finally pushed Bolton out the door, however, is far less relevant than where
Trump goes from here. He will announce a new national security adviser next week, and the
Washington parlor game is already swirling with names.
We don't know who Bolton's replacement will be, but we do know what he or she needs to
do: dump most of the previous regime's ideas in the garbage and start over with strategies that
actually have a chance at success.
Trump needs an adviser who is willing to engage in a pragmatic negotiation and be
prepared for uncomfortable but necessary bargaining. He needs someone who will help him end
wars -- like the 18-year-long quagmire in Afghanistan -- that have gone on aimlessly and
without purpose.
He needs someone who will hold those within the administration accountable when they refuse
to execute policy once it is cleared by the inter-agency. And above all, he or she should prize
restraint and think through all the options when the Beltway loudly urges immediate action.
All of this will be easier with Bolton off the team.
Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters, and a frequent
contributor to The American Conservative.
Iran sanction and the threat of war has nothing to do with its nuclear program. It is about
the USA and by extension Israel dominance in the region. and defencing interesting of MIC, against the interest of general public.
Which is the main task of neocons, as lobbyists for MIC (please understand that MIC includes intelligence agencies and large
part of Wall Street) .
That's why Israel lobby ( and Bloomberg is a part of it ) supports strangulation Iran economy, Iran war and pushes Trump administration into it.
the demand " Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination of Iran's nuclear
activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist
groups across the Middle East -- in exchange for readmission into the world economy" is as close to Netanyahu position as we can
get.
Notable quotes:
"... The Bloomberg editors urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran ..."
"... As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them to yield. ..."
"... They have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons. ..."
"... Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder to justify punitive measures against Iran without end ..."
The
Bloomberg editors
urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran:
Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination
of Iran's nuclear activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its
ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist groups across the Middle East -- in
exchange for readmission into the world economy.
This chance may never come again.
Bloomberg's latest advice to Trump on Iran is terrible as usual, but it is a useful window
into how anti-Iran hard-liners see things. They see the next year as their best chance to push
for their maximalist demands, and they fear the possibility that Trump might settle for
something short of their absurd wish list. If Trump does what they want and "holds out" until
Iran capitulates, he will be waiting a long time. He has nothing to show for his policy except
increased tensions and impoverished and dying Iranians, and this would guarantee more of the
same. The funny thing is that the "extended sunset" they deride is already an unrealistic goal,
and they insist that the president pursue a much more ambitious set of goals that have
absolutely no chance of being reached. As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests
of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them
to yield.
The Bloomberg editorial is ridiculous in many ways, but just one more example will suffice.
At one point it says, "Nor is there any doubt that Iran wants nuclear weapons." Perhaps
ideologues and fanatics have no doubt about this, but it isn't true. If Iran wanted nuclear
weapons, they could have pursued and acquired them by now. They gave up that pursuit and agreed
to the most stringent nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated to prove that they wouldn't
seek these weapons, but the Trump administration chose to punish them for their cooperation.
Iran has not done any of the things that actual rogue nuclear weapons states have done. They
have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the
Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels
needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons.
Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will
continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but
fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners
aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder
to justify punitive measures against Iran without end.
They don't want to resolve the crisis
with Iran, but rather hope to make it permanent by setting goals that can't possibly be reached
and insisting that sanctions remain in place forever.
iv> I see the GLOBALIST shills are in full force on this video, trying to artificially
bring down the ratio from probably 99% Positive that such a bad man is gone. Doesn't matter,
the Silent Majority & good people everywhere know that Bolton was a poor candidate for
that job with a catastrophic failure record & everybody is better of with a more
competent person in that position.
John Bolton is owned by foreign powers like many in Washington. They get paid by their
lobby to push the neocon agenda which translates into robbing the US of it's $ to fight wars
that don't benefit the US.
War monger Bolton. How did that Libya thing work out for Europe ? Now after looking back,
I am sure the African invasion into Europe was planned by Obama and his boss Soros.
Tucker while I agree with you on the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. But one thing
you left out Tucker. Foxnews hired John Bolton as a Contributer for over a decade. How do you
miss that part.
All the policies in the Middle East are complete and other failures. I'm so sick of neo
cons. You can't get rid of them. You can not get rid of them. It doesn't matter who you vote
for. Constant war. Like every regime couldn't be replaced around the world. Absolutely
ridiculous.
"In Washington, nobody cares what kind of job you did, only that you did the job. Nobody
there learns from mistakes, because mistakes are never even acknowledged. Ever." Yes, Tucker
DOES understand Washington!!!
xt" role="article"> If Bolton becomes a Fox News contributor: I will change the channel
immediately... I already do this when Jeff Epstein's, the child trafficker and rapist, good
buddy Alan Dershowitz comes on as a guest... Do not know why Fox News selects guest
contributors that have their morals/values in the wrong directions...
icle"> Bolton was signatory to PNAC- the project for a new american century, like other
progressives and neo-cons of his generation. They do not view the chaos left by taking out
Ghaddafi and Saddam as problems, rather the creation of failed states was their objective all
along. Members of the GOP went along with these plans where they coincided with their own
political and business objectives- the military industrial complex and the oilmen.
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
These idiots don't hire themselves. The problem is Trump. It doesn't matter whether Bolton
(or Pompeo, or Hook, or Abrams) is in or out as long as Trump himself is in the White
House.
That realization has turned my 2016 protest vote for Trump into a 2020 protest vote for
Elizabeth Warren. The underlying principle is be the same, voting yet again for the lesser
of two evils.
CC BY-SA 3.0 /
w:User:Coolcaesar /
United States Department of
JusticeUS 22:39 05.09.2019
(updated 23:51 05.09.2019) Get short URL
9 7 62 The US Department of Justice announced Thursday that Alexander Yuryevich Korshunov,
director for business development at Russia's United Engine Corporation, has been charged with
conspiring to steal trade secrets. The charge carries a potential prison sentence of 10 years.
Korshunov, 57, was arrested in Naples, Italy on August 30 alongisde 59-year-old Maurizio Paolo
Bianchi, on suspicion of industrial espionage. The court filing unsealed Thursday
in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio charges that the two "conspired and
attempted ... to steal and convey the confidential and proprietary information constituting
trade secrets of the Ohio-based Company A."
Bianchi was once the former director of Avio Aero, an Italian subsidiary of GE Aviation and
one of the world's largest aircraft engine suppliers. However, after he left that job to work
at Italian aerospace firm Aernova, he allegedly established a relationship with Korshunov, who
then worked at the Russian-state-owned UEC. According to the filing, Aernova had a contract at
the time with a UEC subsidiary named Aviadvigatel, a firm that specializes in engines for
commercial aircraft.
"It is alleged that between 2013 and 2018, Bianchi – on behalf of Korshunov –
hired current or former employees of GE Aviation's Italian subsidiary to do consulting work
related to jet engine accessory gearboxes for Bianchi and Korshunov," the DOJ
press release announcing the charges states. "The employees' statements of work typically
stated that the 'the holders of patent and intellectual property obtained as a result of the
work are the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.'"
"Throughout the consulting, employees allegedly used trade secrets owned by GE Aviation to
create the technical report. The effort focused on accessory gearboxes made by Avio Aero, which
are external engine components that provide power to systems such as hydraulic pumps,
generators and fuel pumps," the DOJ statement continues.
Following Korshunov's arrest Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called it "a really
bad practice."
"In this case we're dealing with attempts at dishonest competition," he told reporters at
the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, noting the contract between the two firms is "a
normal global practice. It's open commercial work with European partners."
Following the Justice Department's announcement, the Russian Embassy in the US issued a
Thursday statement calling on the State Department to immediately recall its extradition
request for Korshunov.
The current conflict between the West and Russia, which has pushed Russia into the waiting
arms of China began due to the arrogance and short sightedness of the West.
At the tail end of the Cold War, West Germany and East Germany wanted to reunite. The then
Soviet Union (now Russia) would need to give its permission before this happened in accordance
with the 1975 Helsinki Accords. On February 9, 1990
then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested to the Soviet leaders that in return for
allowing West Germany and East Germany to reunite after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and
allowing a reunited Germany to remain in NATO, that NATO would not move 1 inch eastward towards
the then border of the Soviet Union.
While no written guarantee was provided to the Russian leaders, less than a week later,
Premier Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to allow reunification talks to begin between West Germany and
East Germany. Then, less than 1 month later in March of 1990, the U.S.
began planning to organize Eastern Europe into a sphere of U.S. influence and expanding
NATO to the very borders of the Soviet Union.
Despite the promises made by the West, in 1999 NATO agreed to the admission of Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. This was done despite vehement protests by the
Russian government which accused the West of reneging on the agreement reached by the Soviet
Union with Western Europe and the United States. The admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic was followed by the admission of several Eastern European countries in 2004. These
nations are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Since then,
NATO in 2019 has threatened to expand its presence to the southern border of Russia by
officially recognizing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, North Macedonia and Ukraine as aspiring
members of NATO. This is a direct threat to the national security of Russia by placing, what
Russia feels, are hostile forces reminiscent of the German invasion of southern Russia in
1942.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." – Winston
Churchill
This famous quote by Sir Winston Churchill is puzzling, as he was a serious student of
history. A close look at the history surrounding the relations between Russia and the world
would easily explain the suspicion that Russia has of the outside world.
Probably the most decisive moment in the forming of Russian distrust of foreigners has its
roots in the occupation of Russia by the Mongol Horde from 1240 A.D. to 1480 A.D.
Before the rise of Moscow as the principal city of the Rus, Kyiv, now the capital of
Ukraine, was the center of Russian civilization. In 1240 A.D., the Mongol Army under the
nominal command of Batu Khan sacked Kyiv and opened the door to the Mongol conquest of Russia
and the invasion of Europe. From 1240 A.D. to 1480 A.D., the Golden Horde ruled Russia. It was
during this time that the city of Moscow surrounded by a fortress, called a Kremlin on the
banks of the Moscow river became the enforcers of the Mongol Horde, and from 1328 the Horde's
tax collection surrogates.
In November 1989 East German students sit atop the Berlin Wall at the Brandenburg Gate in
front of border guards. The destruction of the once-hated wall signaled the end of a divided
Germany.
The Tver rebellion in 1327 allowed Moscow to gain ascendancy over its rival cities in Russia
by supporting the Mongol's by putting down the Tver rebellion in 1328. As a result of Moscow's
support, the ruler of the Golden Horde granted the Russian cities of Novogorod and Kostroma as
duchies to Moscow, and later Tver itself after the leader of the rebellion was captured and
turned over to the Mongols; there he was quartered alive along with his son. The Mongols then
commissioned the Prince of Moscow to collect the yearly tribute that the Horde had imposed on
the subjugated cities, towns and villages of Russia.
This allowed Moscow to become the most powerful and principal city of Russia. Moscow was
able to increase its power over Russia by bringing under its controls those cities and areas
that were not able to meet their tax burden and adding them to the over lordship of Moscow.
This increased the power of Moscow so much that in 1480 A.D., at the Battle of the Ugra River,
The Duchy of Moscow under Ivan the Third was able to refuse payment of the required tribute to
the Golden Horde, and forced the Mongols to retreat. This battle marks the end of the rule of
Russia by the Golden Horde. The grandson of Ivan the III would at the age of 3 become the
Prince of Moscow, and upon reaching his majority he was crowned "Tsar of all the Russia's."
This was the first Tsar of Russia and the last competent ruler of the Rurikid line. Ivan the
4th was known as Ivan the Formidable and as Ivan the Fearsome in Russia. In the West, he is
known as "Ivan the Terrible."
In the last 200 years, Europe has invaded Russia 4 times.
There is a constant fear in Europe that Russia will invade Europe, and place Europe under
the domination of Moscow. Yet, if one reads the history of political relations between Russia
and Europe for the last 200 years, it is Russia that has had to fear Europe and with good
reason. Beginning with the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812 to the Nazi invasion of 1941,
Russia has had to fight for her polity and her life many times. The most serious invasion of
these four invasions of Russia took place during the summer campaign in Southern Russia of
1942, lasting to the spring of 1943, which culminated in the Battle of Stalingrad.
So, unless there has been some serious change in the dynamics between Russia and the West,
Europe, with a population of 508 million and a GDP of
$18.8
trillion , has nothing to really fear conventionally from a Russia that has a population of
144.5 million people and a
GDP of
$1.578 trillion .
The Euromaidan movement and West's support for the Ukrainian revolution.
Euromaidan protestors. (Ivan Bandura)
The Euromaidan's Movement began as a result of the delay by the government of Viktor
Yanukovych of the association agreement with the European Union. The EU was offering Ukraine
$838 million in loans in return for major changes to Ukraine's laws and regulations. Russia was
offering $15 billion in loans and no demand for changes to its laws and regulations.
With Russia then being Ukraine's biggest trading partner, President Yanukovych at the last
minute decided to take Russia's offer and to remain outside the European Union. Europe, along
with the United States, launched a publicity campaign calling on the people of Ukraine to force
the government of Ukraine to change its position, and to sign the association agreement with
the EU.
In December of 2013, Senator's John McCain and Chris Murphy addressed Ukrainian crowds
urging them to continue to resist the government's decision to remain in the economic and
political orbit of Russia. On February 4th, 2014 Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the American Ambassador to Ukraine in a leaked phone call discussed plans to help form an
interim government after the legitimate Ukrainian government had been dissolved.
In November of 2013, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, Štefan Füle, declared that
he was happy to see that democracy had reached a point where young people could demonstrate
peacefully and legally. On the same day, members of the European Parliament responsible for the
Eastern Partnership policy, Elmar Brok and Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, warned Ukraine not to use
force against the protestors or there "would be consequences."
Shortly thereafter on February 22, 2014, the legitimate Ukrainian government was overthrown,
and the elected president of Ukraine had to flee for his life. It was after the overthrow of
the elected government of Ukraine that Russia annexed the Crimea.
The Crimea in Russian History
The Crimea has been a part of Russia since 1783 when Catherine the Great defeated the
Ottoman Empire, absorbed the Crimea and then built the cities of Sevastopol which became the
center of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and later on Simferopol which became the center of the
Tauride province. From 1921 to 1945, Crimea was the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist
Republic until 1945 when it became an Oblast of the Russian SSR.
Later, in 1954, in a move that was done to help Nikita Khrushchev in his attempt to solidify
Russian control over Ukraine, the Crimea was transferred from the Russian SSR Oblast to UkrSSR.
Khrushchev was then struggling with Soviet Prime Minister Georgy Malenkov for control of the
Russian Communist Party and saw an opportunity to woo the support of the Ukrainian Communist
Party boss, Oleksiy Kyrychenko. It was not until 1955 that Khrushchev was able to fully
consolidate his control over the Communist Party and the rule of the Soviet Union.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine declared its independence from Russia,
and since the Crimea had been part of the Ukrainian Oblast, the Crimea became part of the new
nation of Ukraine.
Why the Crimea is important to Russia's national security and why a political solution is
necessary to end the Ukrainian crisis.
After the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, and the establishment of a government hostile to
Russia, Vladimir Putin reacted to what he believed was an existential threat to the national
polity of Russia. A careful examination of recent history bears him out and explains why Russia
will not willingly allow the Crimea to fall under the political control of any other power.
The Crimea is the last natural militarily defensible obstacle to any invasion of southern
Russia. Before the German Army could begin its summer campaign in southern Russia in 1942, the
port city of Sevastopol in the Crimea had to be reduced in a long and costly siege. It is for
this reason that the summer campaign in southern Russia code-named " Blue ," was without the 11th Army when Blue was
kicked off on June 28, 1942.
The 11th Army was the Army that had been fighting in the siege of Sevastopol and had been
mauled so badly during the siege that 11th Army was prevented from participating in the 1942
summer campaign as had been planned for in Blue. This seriously weakened the 6th Army to where,
when it was locked in street to street fighting at Stalingrad later in the year, the 6th Army
did not have the 11th Army's strength and was unable to dislodge the Russian defenders from the
city.
Once past Crimea, there is no natural defense for Russian military forces until the Don
River to impede any invading force. From the Crimea to the Don there is only a flat plain that
is excellently suited for mechanized warfare. With NATO being so strategically aggressive, it
would be the height of military folly for Russia to allow the Crimea to be in the hands of any
foreign power.
With the West's actions being so strategically threatening to Russia since the fall of the
Berlin Wall, and the expansion of NATO to the political frontiers of Russia, Russia has
countered this by becoming closer economically and militarily closer to China, which is a more
long-range threat to Russia than the West is.
In order to repair the damage done to the relations between the West and Russia, a political
settlement is necessary to remove Russia from the embrace of China, settle the tensions between
the West and Russia, and bring Russia, finally, into the economic and political life of the
West.
If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email
via [email protected]
It has now come to the stage where NATO cannot fight a ground war against Russia, China,
or even Iran. Since firstly, there would be huge opposition to such another crackpot piece of
military adventurism, in both the US and more so in its vassals. The Korean, Vietnam
(Indo-China), and Iraq wars ended the era of massive ground conflicts in which hundreds of
thousands of ground troops were involved.
More importantly was the draft, which met with massive opposition in the US itself.
Secondly there was the enormous cost of such a dubious venture. The cost of these wars led to
a run on the dollar as other states were cashing in their surplus dollars for gold, all of
which resulted to Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971. Empires, as
the US is learning, are expensive little items, and as the British also found out during
their long retreat, beginning with India.
NATO, like the EU bureaucracy, is little more than a job creation scheme for the otherwise
unemployable. It must be difficult to dream up a scheme in which these otherwise redundant
individuals can be employed in doing useful. But NATO like the EU is a bureaucracy, and
bureaucracies by their nature strive to exist and expand with no particular goals or
objectives to realise. It is just a matter or going through the motions: the means, the
routine becomes and end in itself. As Joseph Alois Schumpeter observed: " That in Egypt a
class of professional soldiers formed during the war against the Hyksos, persisted, even when
those were over, along with its warlike instincts and interests this military grouping
created by wars that required it, now created the wars in required."
Bittersweet
Who will plan economies: Financial managers (Trump and Wall St), or democratic governments
(Bernie)?
Bonnie Faulkner: If there were pressures to create a New International Economic Order in
the 1970s, what was this new order looking to achieve?
Michael Hudson: Other countries wanted to do for their economies what the United States
has long done for its own economy: to use their governments' deficit spending to build up
their infrastructure, raise living standards, create housing and promote progressive taxation
that would prevent a rentier class, a landlord and financial class from taking over economic
management.
In the financial field, they wanted governments to create their own money, to promote
their own development, just like the United States does. The role of neoliberalism was the
opposite: it was to promote the financial and real estate sector and monopolies to take
economic management away from government.
So the real question from the 1980s on was about who would be the basic planning center of
society. Would it be the financial sector – the banks and bondholders, whose interest
is really the One Percent that own most of the banks' bonds and stocks?
Or, is it going to be governments trying to subsidize the economy to help the 99 Percent
grow and prosper? That was the social democratic view opposed by Thatcherism and
Reaganism.
I didn't know that. I always thought it stand for 'Venom of America'. Or worse.
Robbobbobin
'It might help, Glasshopper, if you identify your sources on "the longstanding and increasing
oppression of Uigurs in Xinjiang".'
Erm:
Have you travelled all over the region as i have? Do you have friends who've married
into the community?
Patient "anecdotal" evidence bad, identifiable textbook assertion definitive? Ever thought
of becoming a medic?
DunGroanin
The highwater mark for the centuries long Anglo Imperialism is constantly reached across the
globe. Indian subcontinent, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia in the east. Afghanistan and
across back to the ME now the desperate bottom of the barrel petty caesars of the declining
Empire are now splashing around in the Med' – Boltons latest missive by twitter:
"All hands on deck in the campaign to stop Iran from funding terror, destabilizing the
globe, and breaking international sanctions. The illicit oil heading to Turkey on the Adrian
Darya 1 must not be allowed off-loaded in port or at sea."
!!!!!!!!!!!
How the fuck can anyone take the failing Empire at all seriously when one of its highly
placed unelected arseholes starts telling the World about what not to do with ONE fully laden
oil tanker, thoisands of miles from his homeland?? Who the fuck do they think they are
telling never mind talking to? And we are supposed to salute and say yes sir, will do,
whatever you say, massa.
Fuck 'em.
nottheonly1
Bolton is a mentally ill subject whose sense for reality is so much compromised,that he lives
in a fantasy world like anybody who believes to be Napoleon, or worse. He is constantly
projecting his own criminal activities onto others.
Part of his mental illness is that he is incapable to realize that nobody is taking him
serious anymore – but people that are mentally worse off then him. He and his fan base
belong into closed mental healthcare, where they can wear their Napoleon hats and hide their
hands under their jackets.
Father Beyond
My diagnosis of the life-condition of John Bolton is that he displays all the classic
attributes of the psychopath.
He tries to present a charming facade, behind which lies a
complete lack of empathy with human life, which to these warmongering delinquents, remains a
commodity to be disposed of in the satisfaction of their lusts and cravings for money, power,
influence and status, at the base of which lies a perversion of the dignity and worth of all
life, human or otherwise, which struggles to survive in the face of extinction on this
planet, which is the property of no-one yet the property of all.. He is a high priest of
Neo-liberalism and he expounds the "Monroe Doctrine" – which is but one of the
heretical doctrines of Imperialism. The criticisms being directed towards Andre Vitchek here
(and elsewhere) are unfounded and give the impression that these superior beings who mock him
from above, have never read any of his books, let alone given any serious consideration to
the issues he raises. I don't agree with all of his views, but it appears he displays more
courage and integrity than those who like to take cheap shots at him, seeking refuge in the
knowledge that few will even bother to challenge them. Just remember one thing – you
are as bad as the person you condemn. Looking into the mirror of your life-condition, you
will see the "clown", the 'muppet", the "idiot", the "racist" and the 'virtue signaller".
Call the next patient in please. . . . . .
Martin Usher
There are plenty more Boltons where he comes from. Most are a bit more subtle in their
approach but they still share the same goals.
I m
In all honesty and in reply to 'Father Beyond' i'm convinced these people are simply crazed
from watching too many superhero movies.
George
Another issue is what this means for the home populations of the Western nations. As the
Western ruling class finds it harder and harder to intimidate the countries it has been
bleeding, it will find its own formerly luxuriant position in danger and will start to demand
more and more from its lower classes. And since the threat of a worker's revolution (posed
very concretely by Russia and China in the first half of the 20th century) no longer applies,
the welfare state (formed as a concession to keep the proles in line) will become
increasingly decimated. Our ruling class no longer even has to pretend to care. In short, the
UK and US publics will start to become more and more like the foreign native populations
targeted by the West.
So it seems that the 'workers revolutions' were not 100% grassroots up risings, just as
today's "Colour Revolutions" often arise out of the hidden hand of various change agents and
NGO's whose cover is as providing humanitarian support etc.
The Welfare State may have been as you say a concession, but there could conceivably be
other reasons too maybe?
George
I think the Western governments, having had decades of practice and observation, know full
well not only to control the opposition and not only to lead it but to create it too. In a
way, all this is just an extension of capitalist consumerism. The idea is to find out what
everyone wants and then manufacture the image of it, but not the reality.
According to the Adam Curtis documentary, "Century of the Self", Edward Bernays, father of
the modern PR industry, was asked by cigarette manufacturers how to get women to smoke (in
those days it was considered a male activity and the cig industry figured it was missing out
on a huge potential market demographic). Bernays did a bit of research and found out that
what women wanted was to be more independent "like men". So Bernays staged a publicity stunt
whereby a number of young attractive women were to gather and light "torches of freedom"
– this info being delivered with maximum publicity throughout the media. So the day
comes, the women appear and light cigarettes and smoke them. You hear that and think, "Oh
come on now!" But it apparently worked. (Actually I don't think it was a simple case of
fooling the public but of signalling via the press that it was no longer "unseemly" for women
to smoke.) the point being that women wanted freedom, were delivered a "substitute" which
turned out to be little cancer sticks. That's the way capitalism works. And that's also the
way the propaganda system works too.
You could call this "the genius of capitalism". Capitalism says, "Whatever you want, we
can give! You want beauty? Here it is! You want ugliness? Have it! You want violence? Here!
You want rebellion? Here again! You want the overthrow of the capitalist system? No problem!"
Of course it doesn't intend the actual delivery of any of these. It simply drudges up more
commodities.
Thus we can expect the creation of any number of phoney oppositions. Now it may be
paranoia but I think that Dave McGowan's "Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon" about the
deliberate manufacture of trendy rebellious pop music has got a lot of credibility. There's a
book called "A Century of Spin" all about the PR industry and how it works through
organisations that sound like worker's groups or concerned citizen groups but they are just
corporate hack entities. If these were easy enough to create in the pre-internet days, just
think how much easier it is to do now.
mark
Our ruling elite has run out of places to loot.
Unfortunately those pesky Russkies/ Chinks/ Eye-ranians won't play ball any more.
So they have to cannibalise their own societies, eat their own tail and loot their own
countries instead.
Wilmers31
For a one-son family no reason is good enough for war.
Since 'the pill' people adapt their family size to their financial or other means. This
results in one-son families at a significant percentage. Russia is quite an example. Due to
their housing restrictions they had (have) small families. When I heard in 1982 how
distraught Soviet mothers were who had to bury welded zinc coffins (coming from Afghanistan)
I knew the Soviet Union was on borrowed time – and then they threw the whole system
out.
"But it is too cowardly, too spoiled to risk the lives of its soldiers." No, mothers do
not like to see their one son used for war, war that serves the big corporations and not the
people who are told it is their fight.
The main problem was the the USA elite after the dissolution of the USSR was hell-bent on world dominance. And Clinton
was in the vanguard of this trend.
Clinton has pretty destructive, toxic legacy, is not he? He and his administration
essentially acted as a short sited and greedy gangster and he sowed the teeth of dragon into US-Russia relations.
Clinton tried to exploit Russian weakness during this period to the fullest extent possible,. This is the policy similar to
policy of GB toward Germany after WWI. In short Clinton was a typical imperialist from the very beginning and like all subsequent
Presidents valued international treaties and obligation only when they benefited the USA. The stance that illegal bombing of
Serbia only confirmed. At this point by Nuremberg standards he and all top official ion his administration and first of all
Madeline not so bright Albright became war criminals. The fact they they were not prosecuted is just a historical aberration
stemming from the dominant USA position at this time.
Essentially Clinton transformed NATO into aggressive alliance which is an expansion of the USA military.
Notable quotes:
"... As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement were when and how ..."
Newly available sources show how the 1993–95 debate over the best means of expanding
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unfolded inside the Clinton administration. This
evidence comes from documents recently declassified by the Clinton Presidential Library, the
Defense Department, and the State Department because of appeals by the author.
As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement
were when and how . The sources make apparent that, during a critical decision making
period twenty-five years ago, supporters of a relatively swift conferral of full membership to
a narrow range of countries outmaneuvered proponents of a slower, phased conferral of limited
membership to a wide range of states.
Pleas from Central and Eastern European leaders, missteps by Russian President Boris
Yeltsin, and victory by the pro-expansion Republican Party in the 1994 U.S. congressional
election all helped advocates of full-membership enlargement to win.
The documents also reveal the surprising impact of Ukrainian politics on this debate and the
complex roles played by both Strobe Talbott, a U.S. ambassador and later deputy secretary of
state, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian foreign minister.
Finally, the sources suggest ways in which the debate's outcome remains significant for
transatlantic and U.S.-Russian relations today.
... ... ...
In other words, the Bush administration performed the first “ratcheting down” of options, a process not without its costs. It
raised the question, controversial to this day, of whether the Bush administration promised Moscow that, in exchange for
tolerating the extension of NATO across a united Germany, the alliance would not seek further expansion eastward. Opinions on
this topic range from absolutely not to absolutely yes.15
... ... ...
Without advance warning, Yeltsin decided to vent his frustrations publicly at the Budapest summit with Clinton in attendance.
The Russian president accused the United States, in the interest of NATO expansion, of risking a “‘cold peace’” to follow the
Cold War.108
On the flight back from Budapest to Washington, Talbott recalled that the president “was furious at his foreign-policy team for
dragging him across the Atlantic to serve as a punching bag for Yeltsin.”
... ... ...
The shift in U.S. thinking unsurprisingly contributed to more tensions with Moscow, as evidenced by Talbott's subsequent
negotiations. Kozyrev tried to convince Talbott that a better idea would be to transform NATO into “a collective security
organization rather than a vehicle for containment” by amending the North Atlantic Treaty.122
Talbott rejected the idea, saying “no way are we going to entertain the possibility of redefining NATO in any way that
compromises its basic mission.”123
Put bluntly, “We're not in the business of having to ‘compensate’ Russia or buy it off. Russia is not doing us a favor by
allowing NATO to expand.”124
...Finally, interacting with the other five factors was President Clinton's increasing sympathy to the appeals of
CEE leaders, which inclined him toward those aides pushing for full Article 5 expansion, and his personal optimism that Russia
would eventually tolerate enlargement.
...In Perry's view, arms control—most notably, START II, which would have eliminated two-thirds of the U.S. and Russian
arsenals, but never went into effect—ended up being “‘a casualty of NATO expansion’” and of fighting between the Kremlin and the
Duma.139
START III suffered a similar fate, not even progressing to a signing. Looking back in 2015, Perry concluded: “The downsides of
early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared.”140
.... Viewed from twenty-five years on, with U.S.-Russian confrontation on the rise, democracy crumbling in Hungary
and Poland, and U.S. tanks returning to Europe, there is room for doubt. Given that the window of opportunity for changes is now
firmly shut, however, NATO must make the best of the status quo; for the foreseeable future, confrontation with Russia is once
again the order of the day.
I'm sure that had Michael Hudson accepted a position with the CIA, he would not have been
the first or the last person with Marxist, Trotskyist or even more extreme (for want of a
better description) socialist connections to have worked for the agency.
"... I see these actions as ... attempt to keep US hegemony for longer. ..."
"... Further US sanctions on Russia. Russian gdp growth is very low now, forecasts are about mere 1,2 % per anum, and thus Russia's share of world GDP is declining. ..."
"... Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates than before, mainly due to the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar. ..."
"... Take into account one more point: Trump personally can be a clinic idiot on the run form an asylum, it would not change much. Trump is a talking head for some movement, some semi-visible alliance, that managed to enthrone him against 1% election fraud, using pervasive MSM smear campaign and so forth. ..."
"... I think Trump, but not, let's say, Obama, fits well into an attempt by the most hawkish and revanchist elements in the US to destroy globalization and create a world of the jungle, where they estimate the US will have better chances. ..."
"... ok, I think I get it. So what Arioch and others are saying is that the U.S. empire uses the head choppers like attack dogs to do the dirty work and has some kind of indigenous recruiting stream that feeds the 'down and outs' from areas like western China, Chechnia, Arabia, Africa, Europe, America, etc, into a ragtag 'army'. ..."
> Same thing with China trade war - it was Trump who demanded more tariffs
This part fits well into "isolationist' bill actually.
This part can be interpreted as "controlled demolition of US foreign trade" - racing against
uncontrollable catastrophic demolition by sudden USD collapse.
So you are of the view that Trump is part of attempt to create a controlled demolition of
the US Empire?
I do not agree with that. I see these actions as a Cold War and attempt to keep US
hegemony for longer.
Interestingly enough, China overtaking the US in gdp MER has been postponed after the
start of the trade war. The 2016 forecasts were about 2024, and the latest are about 2032.
Developing countries growth is being downgraded as well.
This fits well into the view that the US is trying to sabotage the global economy and
particularly developing countries in order to slow down emerging multipolarity.
> I see these actions as ... attempt to keep US hegemony for longer.
Good. So then show me a list of Team Trump actions in foreign policy, since he got
enthroned, that enhanced US position as "world leader".
As for me, i do not see a single one.
And i do not buy "coincidence theory" that Trump tried to win all the encounters but lost
them all, with 100% efficiency, because he is a fool surrounded by idiots.
Would it be so, then by shear probability they would win at least something at least
sometimes. So, i seem Trump playing his idiocy card for the sake of plausible deniability.
Basically, if to employ the anthropic principle, what else can Trump do where he is (and
especially where he was in 2016) to do his dismantling and kept his office, freedom and
life?
It is possible that Trump tries to ruin US' standing in the world, to break some alliances,
and to piss off enough people that the US wouldn't be asked to help or intervene here and
there (though he'd be delusional or hypocritical not to realize that, often, the US likes to
be asked to meddle in other countries' business). That might be a way to ensure the US is far
more isolationist, and therefore goes further into self-reliance.
In which either he doesn't
see or doesn't care that it also means that a multi-polar world will come faster, because
other powers will take over the room left by the US. We'd be back to a system of spheres of
influence, more than a superpower acting as the world's hegemon.
Of course, that's trying to make sense of what might either be Trump not having a clue, or
having totally different plans.
Good. So then show me a list of Team Trump actions in foreign policy, since he got enthroned,
that enhanced US position as "world leader".
Posted by: Arioch | Aug 20 2019 12:51 utc | 76
Plenty.
Further US sanctions on Russia. Russian gdp growth is very low now, forecasts are about
mere 1,2 % per anum, and thus Russia's share of world GDP is declining.
China postponed for overtaking the US in gdp MER to 2032 from 2024.
Indian growth downgraded - which taken together with China means slowing down Asia's
rise.
Iran in recession - long term growth is low - it means that Iran's share of the world
economy is now declining. This will lower iranian influence in the long term.
Venezueala in deep recession - sanctions reduced gdp by 7 %, thus a serious weakening of
the influence of this country is to follow.
In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Weakened the EU, via support for Brexit and other ways - it means that the euro will not
be a viable alternative for replacing the dollar, and it is permanently threatened by italian
economic collapse. Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty
hard.
Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means
slowing down multipolarity as turkish growth is now low. Empowering the kurds is further used
to stop the rise of Turkey as a regional power.
Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates than
before, mainly due to the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing
down multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar.
Take into account one more point: Trump personally can be a clinic idiot on the run form an
asylum, it would not change much.
Trump is a talking head for some movement, some semi-visible alliance, that managed to
enthrone him against 1% election fraud, using pervasive MSM smear campaign and so forth.
Focusing all the processes upon a single person and then glorifying or dehumanizing it is
east to swallow, causes Hollywoodesque thrills and resonates with our animal instincts to see
a biggest ape of the cave as natural leader (whether we would love or hate such a cave chief
is another question). And that is why it is loved by propaganda. Stalin was godlike figure
in USSR. And devil-like figure in the West, before and after WW2. And he was next door "Uncle
Joe" with x-mas candies - during WW2.
Well, d'oh, did USSR as a nation or as ideology changed
that much betweem 1932-1942-1952? Hardly so. Same thing about Syria - there is no such a
land, there is no such a nation, there is only Assad the Dictator, and no one else there.
Etc, etc.
Now in USA it is all about Trump the fascist wannabe, Trump the orange buffoon, Trump this
and Trump that. Like he was the last leaving person left in USA.
I think Trump, but not, let's say, Obama, fits well into an attempt by the most hawkish
and revanchist elements in the US to destroy globalization and create a world of the jungle,
where they estimate the US will have better chances.
ok, I think I get it. So what Arioch and others are saying is that the U.S. empire uses the
head choppers like attack dogs to do the dirty work and has some kind of indigenous
recruiting stream that feeds the 'down and outs' from areas like western China, Chechnia,
Arabia, Africa, Europe, America, etc, into a ragtag 'army'.
One just wonders (but I have read no-one raising this question) why Epstein stopped being useful, why was his "business" dismantled.
All further steps, "suicide" comprised, are standard operation.
The scandal is about the Mega Group [Bonfman and Wexner and the assorted group of other Israel-firsters with the ties to
Mossad], Maxwells [the old embezzler and his daughter the pimp, both tied to Mossad] and Mossad: "The Spy Story at the Heart
of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal."
The end: blackmail the "elite" clients on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.
Thanks for posting this most interesting and edifying story about Israeli decade-long, standard practice, of using sex trafficking
to blackmail and control politicians.
Although Shulamit Cohen's story is highly embellished by official historiography, she herself started working as a prostitute.
The Syrian military she trapped was Adib Al Shishkali, who went on to become Syria's president.
The young girl she used to bait her "clients" was a 14-year Armenian youngster called Lucy Kobelian.
One of Mossad' main modes of operation is prostitution. Not surprising. The Jewish tribe is
exceptional in having as its heroines a set of prostituting women -- Esther, Judith, Dalila.
No wonder that the orthodox Jews treat women like filth. All within the national tradition.
In 1967, Shulamit Cohen, Rachel Raffoul and two of the Jewish prostitutes were released
in a secret prisoner exchange after the Six Day War: they were exchanged against three
officers of the Syrian air force (the official version states that they were exchanged for
"over 500 prisoners").
Today Shula is a national hero of Israel and her story has been whitewashed and made
"apt for public consumption". She lives in the neighborhood of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish
fundamentalists, the Haredim, who are probably ignorant of her past.
And if a man and a woman are drowning in a river, first they'll save the man, "who is
obligated to perform more commandments," whereas a woman's "wisdom is only in the spindle."
In fact, "words of Torah should be burned rather than being given to women."
A man must say three blessings every day during morning prayers: He thanks God "that He
didn't make me a gentile, that He didn't make me a woman, that He didn't make me an
ignoramus."
"... “It would be contrary to our interests to give Moscow the impression,” Nixon wrote, “that we are prepared to help only as long as Russia remains on its knees. Russia is a great country that deserves to be treated with appropriate respect.” ..."
"... Nixon was either lying or was outright delusional. The collective West can not operate in terms of friendship. The only motive behind any western foreign policy has always been to gain absolute power with no limits or borders. It happens that Russia is viewed as the only nation that can stop that western culture of domination and offer a multi polar world order, respected national sovereignty and mutual trust. Therefore the animosity towards Russia is inevitable, no matter what, as long as Russia exists. Any other view is a sort of wishful thinking. ..."
"... The constantly escalated lie of America about Russia's aggression is needed to knock out 2% of the military budget from satellites for the purchase of actually American weapons, to support the American military industrial complex. ..."
"... Russia enjoys escalation dominance in its own sphere, all the way up to the use of nukes in defense. America cannot possibly justify using that same kind of escalation, which means America will be the first to blink and then withdraw. ..."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly sided with opposition groups in Russia and expressed sympathy with mass anti-government
demonstrations whose organizers made no secret of their objective to remove Putin from power. In March 2011, Vice President Joe Biden
told Russian opposition leaders that it would be "bad for the country and for himself" if Putin attempted to run for president the
following year, according to the later murdered Putin critic Boris Nemtsov. I have spoken with people who were present at Biden's
meeting with the Russian opposition, and there was no question in their mind that Biden fully intended to pressure Putin not to run
again. Biden and Clinton were not acting out of turn; the Obama administration put its money where its mouth was, giving millions
of dollars to political opposition groups in Russia. Today, leading Democrats are demanding that Russia refrain from intervening
in the 2020 elections, but what implications do such demands have for America's own willingness to take sides in Russian political
disputes?
... ... ..
Last but not least, we must be willing to be clear that we are not beholden to shaping American policy exclusively to align with
the whims of our allies. Relationships between former iron curtain states are remarkably complex and fraught with centuries of painful
history, making them prone to conflict with one another. It is precisely these parochial European conflicts which George Washington
strongly advised against being involved in, stating in his farewell address that America should be wary of entangling, "our peace
and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice."
WASHINGTON ALSO spoke about those, "ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens," who become so enamored with the causes of their
favorite countries that they not only lose perspective of American interests, but are even prepared to accuse those who disagree
with them of a lack of patriotism and, in modern times, of being a Putin lackey. One does not need to be a supporter of President
Trump to understand that these pseudo-patriots do not serve American interests or American values well. In April 2019, 73 percent
of the Ukrainian people rejected President Petro Poroshenko, who ran on a nationalist, anti-Russian platform. While few American
and European experts were willing to acknowledge that the Poroshenko government was corrupt, inept, and, according to Ukrainian media,
willing to use money to influence the American political process, they were suddenly willing to make such pronouncements as soon
as the election results were solidified. America cannot allow the designation of an "ally" to make any states immune from disagreement
or criticism. When the stakes are as high as nuclear war, America cannot afford to conduct foreign policy based on the whims of its
domestic constituencies or the sentiments of those very "deluded" citizens about whom Washington warned.
Great American presidents of the past knew how to be loyal allies, but to do it in a calibrated and deliberative fashion. President
Dwight D. Eisenhower fully understood the importance of the transatlantic alliance, having fought to preserve it in World War II,
yet in 1956 he refused to support Britain and France during the Suez Crisis when doing so went against America’s national interest.
Similarly, despite being a genuine friend to Israel, Ronald Reagan was willing to condemn it for going overboard in Lebanon in 1982.
But today, to suggest that America is not obliged to support with blood and treasure the actions of our allies and friends is considered
morally unacceptable. That is why whenever Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine have any disagreement with Russia, America automatically
denounces Russia as the aggressor, regardless of the historical background, geopolitical context, and even, as in the case of Russia’s
war with Georgia in 2008, who attacked whose troops first.
America and Russia appear unlikely to resolve their hostilities any time soon. America has a long tradition of standing tall and
being prepared to be ruthless in the defense of its interests, but also in being careful not to unnecessarily entangle itself in
the conflicts of others. If the United States starts treating Putin’s Russia like it is Hitler’s Germany, moves from supporting Ukrainian
and Georgian sovereignty to encouraging these states to conduct hostile policies towards Moscow, and strengthens NATO’s military
position in the Baltics, Russia may feel confronted by an existential threat.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest.
“It would be contrary to our interests to give Moscow the impression,” Nixon wrote, “that we are prepared to help only
as long as Russia remains on its knees. Russia is a great country that deserves to be treated with appropriate respect.”
Nixon was either lying or was outright delusional. The collective West can not operate in terms of friendship. The only
motive behind any western foreign policy has always been to gain absolute power with no limits or borders. It happens that Russia
is viewed as the only nation that can stop that western culture of domination and offer a multi polar world order, respected national
sovereignty and mutual trust. Therefore the animosity towards Russia is inevitable, no matter what, as long as Russia exists.
Any other view is a sort of wishful thinking.
To save us all from the nuclear catastrophe it is important to remember what Putin once said:
""We are not interested in the world without Russia" (c)
The constantly escalated lie of America about Russia's aggression is needed to knock out 2% of the military budget from
satellites for the purchase of actually American weapons, to support the American military industrial complex. This lie began
with the already proven European aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia. And the RETURN of the Crimea during the anarchy
arranged by America coup in Ukraine. America uses Goebbels propaganda.
Part of the problem is that the establishment Republicans got heady beginning in the early 1990s, thinking that America is
omnipotent and can always get its way in the world. Nowhere was this sentiment stronger than the business elite. This arrogance
continues in our foreign policy with those like John Bolton who figure that firepower is always the answer. The good news is that
this sentiment peaked during the George W. Bush years, when Iraq taught the lesson that solutions are often not quick-and-easy.
I think the proper title of the article should be "Russia continue to be delusional about Ukraine"
Dimitri's is the perfect example of how Russian propaganda wants to cast events in the Ukraine: " In April 2019, 73 percent
of the Ukrainian people rejected President Petro Poroshenko, who ran on a nationalist, anti-Russian platform "
While it is obvious Ukrainians showed Poroshenko the location of the exit door, the main reason was not his so-called anti-Russian
nationalistic platform, but corruption and inability to accelerate necessary reforms.
If the resentment against so called nationalism and anti-Russian policies were material, then the pro-Russian block will have
significantly more votes than it managed to gain.
Dmitri here follows Russian dogma and equates pro Ukrainian to anti Russian. Any move in Ukraine to advance Ukrainian language,
history and culture - in a sense a sort of affirmative action policy - equates to anti Russian nationalism.
And this delusion needed to be fixed in order for Russia to be able to start moving back towards normalcy in relationship with
its neighbors.
Volo, you don't know how public perception works - if you pour dirt on somebody who has wide respect and sound reputation -
it backfires. By badmouthing Dimitri Simes you basically show how foolish you are. You may not feel like it in your little make-believe
Ukranian banderite world - but this is how it is in reality.
Besides, Volo, we both know you're Poroshenko supporter and you supported him because of his nationalistic anti-Russian stance.
So why pretend he's out because he's inefficient manager? Also, there is a so-called Fallacy of a Single Cause, which you seem
to follow. Obviously, there were many reasons for Poroshenko's fall, yet chief among them being ultra-nationalism and administrative
ineptitude
Yeap, educate yourself on the list of
logical fallacies . As I've said, I'm glad I'm a good influence on you
"And this delusion needed to be fixed in order for Russia to be able to start moving back towards normalcy in relationship
with its neighbors."
You can't have normalcy when Ukraine is still ruled on the streets by armed facist ultra-nationalist scumbags. Once these criminals
are disarmed and jailed awaiting trial then normalcy will have a chance.
Seriously?! You really not see the reality... you swallow everything Putin told you... take time and learn a bit about history,
stop to be the little good soldier and became a human!
Yes, seriously. The armed nationalists are a damngerous force in Ukraine and the elected politicans are quite rightly scared
of these radicals. People die in Ukraine if they speak out openly against the Nationalist militants, ask Oles Buzina... oh wait,
we can't cuz they killed him.
Speaking out against the Ukro nationalists in 2019 is like speaking out against the Russian mafia in the 90s and 00s. It's
a great way to get yourself killed.
"Russia’s grievances, real or imagined, are not justifications for the United States abandoning the pursuit of its own
interest and allowing Russian domination of Eurasia.
But the United States has no legitimate interests in the former Soviet Union. For the US to think otherwise is to be power
drunk and blinded by imperial greed.
It scares to me see that so many of my ignorant countrymen in America seem to have a sense of manifest destiny regarding the
former Soviet land mass. This myopic America policy is going to lead to disaster for the US. That's because Russia enjoys
escalation dominance in its own sphere, all the way up to the use of nukes in defense. America cannot possibly justify using that
same kind of escalation, which means America will be the first to blink and then withdraw.
It is amusing how Banderites always blame others for their own failures and utter irrelevance. You violently siezed Ukraine
and proceeded to make a slaughterhouse and a basket-case out of her, but its always someone elses fault... what a good little
empty-headed stormtrooper for Empire you are....
The author likes to write about US "defense of its interests" but what about when those "interests" are in direct opposition
to the real interests of the nations and peoples in those distant lands? Why should the self-declared and often selfish desires
of the US elites be used as justification for political, financial or outright military aggression? Are we really going to accept
law-of-the-jungle in global relations where the strong & wealthy get to attack the weak & impoverished simply because doing so
is ostensibly in their "interests"? A burglar ransacks your house while you're out and kills your dog in the process cuz its in
his "interest', but that doesn't make it OK.
Somewhere we need to accept that morality and ethics should be the primary guide as to how we interact with others. Unfortunately
the US elites have long since abandoned any such constraints or considerations as they aren't really compatible with building
a global hegemony and crushing all resistance to their rule.
"Putin is not blindly militaristic, but always considers the consequences of his actions, even if he has not always managed
to anticipate them correctly (as was the case with Russian interference in U.S. elections)."
"Russia’s interference in the American political process was serious and real"
Gimmee a break.... Russian "interference".... The author feels the need to insert this debunked shibboleth into his article?
Surely there isn't a free-thinking individual alive who still belives this hogwash?
Yeah, he did. Biden bragged about it. Stop this "Russia's paranoia" nonsense, you keep on clinging to it until it's proven
to be truth in some memoir of an ex-cia chief or US offical. Just like with NATO not expanding that was portrayed as a myth until
it appeared they really promised it to Gorbachev.
America and its European allies supported the ousting of Yanukovych in 2014
It was a lot more than simple "support". The U.S., led by State Department Nitwit Vulgarian Victoria Nuland and her barrel
of CIA monkeys directly organized and enabled the Maidan coup debacle. All the U.S. had to do was wait for the next presidential
election in Ukraine. But no, the Global Cop Gorilla had to stick its fat greasy thumb into someone else's soup yet again.
And the Russians knew that following the ham-fisted coup the U.S. would direct its new puppet President in Ukraine to eject
them from their historic naval base in Sevastopol that Russia had occupied for more than 200 years. Ironically, no U.S. facilitated
coup, no annexation of Crimea.
The Global Cop Gorilla wrecks everything that it touches. The one perverse benefit of the Trump presidency is that U.S. foreign
policy pathology is now so visible to the rest of the planet
"At the next revolution, the present rulers would either give up power peacefully or follow the fate of Chaushesqu or Qaddafi."
You mean Russians want NATO to bomb Moscow so that Russian people could get the honor of being sold on the slave markets like
Libyan people are today?
https://www.reuters.com/art...
Qaddafi is indeed a cautionary tale, just not the one you think it is.
Yet again, lying by omission . Their 'Defense Correspondent' Jonathan Marcus notes
briefly that W. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 and that Russia announce pulling
out of it in 2007 but does not explain why, i.e. the combination of the following:
a) expanding these 'defensive' ABM sites to the lo-land of Po-land & also Romania
b) the universal Mk.41 launchers can also fire nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles at
Russia from much closer ranges = less reaction time = reduced deterrence effect =
increases the chance of nuclear first strike against Russia, and thus
c) denied/refused Russia any means to verify the non-use of nukes for the launchers just
saying 'Trust us!' which is complete bs considering all the previous promises made and
not kept.
None of the linked articles therein mention Russia's objections. But then Marcus is
only a 'Defence correspondent' (such small details clearly aren't important in the grand
scheme of things) and he can always get a future job at NATO as a Spokesman like previous BBC
journos Oana Lungescu & Mark Laity. In a fight between Jonathan Marcus & Mark Urban,
who do you think would replace Oana? Or someone else? They all do sterling government
service
Oooh, looky here! The BBC inches itself up the line which if crossed would constitute
journalism . Why don't they just jump on in? It's safe as long as your patrons –
Da Gov – and the intelligence services don't go after you (Hello 'Guardian'!):
In an earlier statement, Russia's foreign ministry said the US decision to withdraw was
"a grave mistake".
It also accused America of violating the treaty by deploying MK-41 launchers in Europe,
capable of firing intermediate-range cruise missiles
####
So the plus is, above they actually link to the Russian Foreign Ministry statement, but no
further. The big minus is that they wrote far, far more about Russia's 'violations'.
That t-Rump thinks Russia, let alone China is excited about joining a new deal,
hahahahahahahah!
We also discover that go to and favorite 'defense expert' (MGU Candidate of Sciences
Biology degree!) for the Pork Pie News Networks Pavel Felgenhauer is not dead!
In view of the anniversaries of bomb tests 2 and 3 (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) let's remember that
Groves said the bomb was to control Russia (said in March of 1944), not Japan.
And let's read fun stuff> (url is broken-up) http://blog. nuclearsecrecy.com/ 2017/04/10/president-bomb-iii/
Title> The President and the Bomb, Part III
The Plan to control Russia has evidently failed...
Oh yes, there's Coster-Mullin and his gadget... (look him up)
NATO expansion is the kind of immoral enterprise that justifies nearly any response from
Russia.
While David Warsh keys on Russia vis a vis the North Atlantic front of the US post WW II
world order it should not be considered in vacuum.
There is the Caspian Sea front of the US post WW II world order that is absorbing immense
US treasure and further moral decline (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen....) which
fortunate for US post WW II world order Putin has been rather restrained.
There is also China and OBOR entering in the Caspian Sea front with high moral purpose and
economic weapons not bombs and special operators!
David Warsh has been on my weekly read list since I tacked my low quarters to a tree in
the backyard in the Boston area.
"... Can anyone clarify the exact manner in which contractors for the State department become operatives for CIA or are handled by CIA? ..."
"... The entire Russia – Gate thing seems very CIA-ish . See CHALMERS JOHNSON'S "THE SORROWS OF EMPIRE", seems like since I read it ~ 2004 I have been watching Chalmers prediction come true in slow motion. ..."
"... Bill Browder shows up in D.C and gets special booking to go before congress. Why? Because he runs a hedge fund? B.S. there is much more to it than that. ..."
"... I have written plenty about Browder's actions and I have always thought him showing up when he did, the way he did was very strange. ..."
"... If Bill didn't pay his taxes where did all that money go? Why is it DOJ is hog tied so badly it cannot produce evidence? What is it that all the above want to keep secret? Why all the lies? ..."
"... Lets us suppose that the CIA who has been in the money laundering business for years and who likely wrote the book on the subject, had a plan. Maybe that plan was to have Browder do exactly what he did,. Except for the getting caught part. ..."
"... JFK lamented that for a government to keep secrets from it's people because it feared telling them the truth was not acceptable. Maybe he saw then what I see now, a public that increasingly threatened by it's government. ..."
"... In a recent newspaper column renowned Danish journalist and editor+ Flemming Rose examines in detail some core, false, claims made by such propagators of the myth as Browder, his connected supporters Jonathan Winer (USA), Irwin Cotler (Canada) and others. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2017 that Browder's major American client, the Ziff brothers, had cheated on American and Russian taxes and contributed the "dirty money" to the Democrats. ..."
"... If Law Enforcement Officers come across evidence of a crime during an investigation, are they not obligated by Law to report it and to investigate it? Didn't the Mueller Team break the Law if they ignored this? ..."
"... Russia Gate was created out of smoke by Hillary and her campaign and people in the Obama administration and justice department. I'm hoping that Barr will release all the information that is being gathered ..."
"... The problem is that Goldstone invented most of the conversation, he told Veselnitskaya via Emin, that Don Jr could help her arrange a Senate hearing about Browder, and told Don Jr she would have "dirt"on Hillary. ..."
"... Even if Browder has a good reason for this, it is still obstruction of Justice, most likely can throw in Conspiracy to Interfere with the Election as a foreign agent by giving Steele a fake meeting. Browder desperately wanted to discredit Simpson, and it's likely Browder suggested Winer hire Simpson, so he can get embroiled with the Steele Dossier. ..."
"... Mueller is a deep state spy who's "investigation" was nothing but an effort to cover up the deep state's efforts to direct the outcome of the 2016 election. They get away with this, and they'll be at it again in 2020. Our democracy is toast. ..."
"... We keep coming back to Browder. Browder is Russiagate is my sense. ..."
"... Quantity or quality? Has the FBI tracked the number of contacts other campaigns have with foreigners, even Russians ? Obama, McCain, Bushes, Clinton's, Kerry, etc? ..."
"... We do know that one campaign actually hired a foreign agent to obtain information from Russia about an opponent and stated that highly placed Kremlin military and intelligence provided information on Trump which was pitched to numerous media outlets.Of course, controlling a few hundred million derived from a sale of control of uranium market is of no interest. These two events seem a bit weightier than Mr. Goldstone's tee-shirt. ..."
"... Mueller may have been a prisoner of his staff, we'll see how knowledgeable he is about what is in the report, if he actually answers questions ..."
"... The more of this is revealed, the more the holy Mueller comes forth as an old, tired cop, that has long lost the fine tricks of the trade, who was only still capable of the crude tricks of the trade. His pathology and tragedy is that he doesn't see it himself; it is likely to become his downfall when he testifies. ..."
"... Those who have seen the film, "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes.", by Andrei Nekrasov know that Nekrasov had a sea-change experience, shared by viewers of the film who get a front-seat, close-up look at what went on. That any who see the film could possibly retain a favorable impression of Browder is very hard to imagine. ..."
"... Mueller's apparent lack of curiosity and equally apparent willingness to accept so very many things at face value, based solely on what he was told, without, so it seems, any genuine effort on his part to look more deeply, to actually investigate beyond what really is hearsay, does not paint a picture of an intrepid, dogged pursuit of facts and actual evidence, but rather a slipshod pretense while unctously playing the make believe role of "Special Counsel". ..."
"... At least, this Second Coming, of Mueller will possibly provide a brief and hilarious respite from the Democratic Debate Circus floperation. And the media is sure to love it, Trump Tweets and all. ..."
"... He'll turn up every rock looking for dirt on Trump, but if someone says 'Your boy's dirt is under that rock,' he'll just pretend he didn't see it. There is no reason to ever trust him at all. Dude is an awful investigator, and should have been disbarred when it came to light that Agent John Connolly tipped off Whitey Bulger about a bug that State Police put in the Lancaster St. Garage, which served as Whitey's office. John Connolly is in prison, and his boss is lionized as a hero. ..."
"... Seems to be similar to the well choreographed story of The White Helmets. The deception is so widespread that it's nearly impossible to fully expose ..."
"... I've claimed that the CIA (and or FBI) was active in ensuring Sanders wouldn't rise above HRC in the 2016 campaign; the trail was leading here so the "players" unleashed the Russiagate circus (and we didn't even get any bread with it!). ..."
"... Many of the enablers of this hoax must know better, using the "ends justify the means" rationalization; as our self-appointed "protector" Colbert. ..."
She was also working with Fusion GPS and had nothing?
Trump Dossier Firm Also Supplied Info Used in Meeting of Russians, Trump Team
"The information that a Russian lawyer brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. in
June 2016 stemmed from research conducted by Fusion GPS, the same firm that compiled the
infamous Trump dossier, according to the lawyer and a source familiar with the matter."
Can anyone clarify the exact manner in which contractors for the State department become
operatives for CIA or are handled by CIA?
The entire Russia – Gate thing seems very CIA-ish . See CHALMERS JOHNSON'S "THE
SORROWS OF EMPIRE", seems like since I read it ~ 2004 I have been watching Chalmers
prediction come true in slow motion.
One thing about CIA being the most powerful entity in the U.S. when they screw up they
have no place to hide. except behind the skirt of Lady Justice!
Mr. Mueller are you back there also?
robert e williamson jr , July 5, 2019 at 13:53
I would wonder just how many files Mueller has gotten from ICIJ. Maybe we all need to call
bull shit on this entire affair.
Everyone says follow the money but no one seems to be able to do so here. Why not. ICIJ
sure as hell seems able to get info.
I'll state it again, I wonder just how much data Mueller got from ICIJ since CIA didn't
have it?
Bill Browder shows up in D.C and gets special booking to go before congress. Why? Because
he runs a hedge fund? B.S. there is much more to it than that.
I have written plenty about Browder's actions and I have always thought him showing up
when he did, the way he did was very strange. Whether what he claims to be true seems not to
have mattered to congress. Look at what the fools have done. Magnitski Act for what.
So did Bill, the DEEP STATE and CIA all get caught doing what they have always done in
third world countries for the last 70 years ?
If Bill didn't pay his taxes where did all that money go? Why is it DOJ is hog tied so
badly it cannot produce evidence? What is it that all the above want to keep secret? Why all
the lies?
It appears someone has gotten to DOJ. AGAIN!
I have some very bad news for many here. If what I witnessed here in the last couple of
years here is the only way for those who contribute and those who comment here to expose evil
doers we all are thoroughly screwed.
The county is running out of time. If Mueller has received data from ICIJ maybe we all
should be after someone to get the information about what files he got.
Lets us suppose that the CIA who has been in the money laundering business for years
and who likely wrote the book on the subject, had a plan. Maybe that plan was to have Browder
do exactly what he did,. Except for the getting caught part.
Just what do you suppose that carnage would look like.
Think about what the rest of the planet is thinking about the U.S. singing happy birthday
to it's self at such a chaotic time.
Isn't that something to be expected from 2 and 3 year old children?
JFK lamented that for a government to keep secrets from it's people because it feared
telling them the truth was not acceptable. Maybe he saw then what I see now, a public that increasingly threatened by it's
government.
We have the Trump mafia running the repugniklans and the Israeli mafia running the
dimocraps, and the DEEP STATE hoarding the proceeds.
"Off with their heads ", the Queen Shouted. She must have been familiar with the heads of
hedge funds!
In the 1990s I received an NNA – National Newspaper Award (Canada's top prize for
print journalism) for a series of newspaper articles first exposing the presence of Russian
mafia money laundering behind North American public and private co.s – and shut down
the YBM Magnex fraud – which led to Semion Mogilevitch being placed on the FBI's "Most
Wanted" list. The late Robert I. Friedman's "Red Mafiya" book (2000) included info from this
case – and he broke the word in the US via a 1998 feature in "The Village Voice".
I retired from active investigation of white collar / organized crime at the turn of the
century – and just last year became aware that the con-man Bill Browder, who, in the
1990s, was being mentored by another international scammer, Edmond Safra, is today falsely
portrayed as an "anti-corruption crusader". This geopolitical smoke-and-mirrors act is
maintained through the support of state actors and a western "legacy" media that is failed in
so many ways.
Fortunately, the inter-twined myths are all coming undone. To do my part, I've launched a
website "J'Accuse News" @ https://jaccuse.news
There is more than enough independent information – corporate, court, police+
records, employee interviews etc. – accessible on the public record for anyone that
chooses to know the truth of the "Magnitsky" campaign to do so.
In a recent newspaper column renowned Danish journalist and editor+ Flemming Rose examines
in detail some core, false, claims made by such propagators of the myth as Browder, his
connected supporters Jonathan Winer (USA), Irwin Cotler (Canada) and others.
"In his own words, Sergey Magnitsky was neither Bill Browder's lawyer nor a whistleblower.
It is in his witness statements." Rose concludes: "I salute the fight against human rights
abuses and personally was active in this fight in the former Soviet Union. But I fear that,
by relying on untruths, Browder's campaign could undermine this fight rather than support
it."
Fittingly, in Denmark, the land which gave the world Hans Christian Andersen, author of
"The Emperor's New Clothes", the Browder/Magnitsky con is unraveling and the naked truth is
revealed:
Editorial columns penned by Flemming Rose published by"Berlingske":
Danish investigative authors Birgitte Derykilde and Lars Abild have just announced their
book, which promises to reveal "The Emperor's New Clothes" of geopolitics, will be published
August12, 2019 (with a focus on the elements within that country eg. Danske Bank). The book's
title, "Troldmanden", translates fully into English as "The Wizard (master of trolls) –
the story about Danske Bank, money laundering and the man who deceived/fooled the world":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOl9S0_jMEk
###
Zhu , July 5, 2019 at 05:22
Remeber the Historians' Rule, folks: Stupidity always trumps conspiracy.
John McCarthy , July 5, 2019 at 00:09
From your article:
" Veselnitskaya testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2017 that
Browder's major American client, the Ziff brothers, had cheated on American and Russian taxes
and contributed the "dirty money" to the Democrats.
The Mueller investigators appear not to have looked into her charges. "
If Law Enforcement Officers come across evidence of a crime during an investigation, are
they not obligated by Law to report it and to investigate it? Didn't the Mueller Team break
the Law if they ignored this?
Abby , July 4, 2019 at 21:06
One thing about this Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr is that she originally couldn't
get into the country because she had problems with her passport. The Obama state department
had to fix it for her. And after the meeting she met with Simpson from Fusion GPS for
dinner.
Almost every person who ended up having contact with someone to make it look like they
were colluding with Russians was setup by the FBI or were members or connected to the
Clinton's foundation.
Russia Gate was created out of smoke by Hillary and her campaign and people in the Obama
administration and justice department. I'm hoping that Barr will release all the information
that is being gathered, but I doubt that he will let Obama be snared in it. Mueller took the
country on the biggest snipe hunt in history. Lots of people are thinking that they got lots
of snipes.
False. That is the disinformation spread by Fox News, John Solomon and Sara Carter, most
likely originating with Browder. Yes, she did meet Simpson on July 8, because he was hired by
US law firm Baker-Hostetler, who she hired to conduct the defence for her client Denis
Katsyv, in the Prevezon case.
In 2013, Browder had secretly passed US Attorney Preet Bharara a bundle of documents,
accusing Katsyv, wrongly as it turned out, of using proceeds of the alleged "Russian Tax
Fraud", central to his Magnitsky story. Browder was working with the State Dept's Jonathan
Winer, now his his personal lawyer, to have his Magnitsky story enshrined in US Case Law,
effectively giving the State the ability to confiscate any Russian property in the US by
linking it to the so called tax fraud.
The problems began for Browder, when his was discovered, and BH hired Simpson to check out
his story. Simpson recounts in his Senate Testimony, that they tracked Browder to Aspen,
Colorado, twice he evaded the subpoena, and again in New York, after he told the Judge Greisa
he would be overseas, he ran away from the server, after coming out of NBC studios plugging
his fictional book "Red Notice"
The Judge ordered Browder to appear on 15 April 2015, for a Deposition under oath. The
reason why he ran became clear, he couldn't substantiate any of the evidence he provided,
mostly complied by his staff, and he couldn't substantiate his Magnitsky Story either.
So what did he do? What he always does, attempt to shut down proceedings, on a thin
pretext, and his appeal was, guess what, in New York on morning of 9 June.
The meeting between NV and Simpson was about Browder's appeal, both have sworn to that
effect and there is zero evidence they setup the Trump Tower meeting. The also went to a full
defence team dinner a few days after, all above board.
However Browder always accuses others of his crimes, there is good evidence that Browder
was working with the State Dept's Robert Otto and Jonathan Winer, from Otto's leaked emails,
showing a menacing photograph of Veselnitskaya's Moscow home, the same day, she was granted a
work visa by the State Dept, 6 June 2016, three days before Browder's appeal. Same day,
Goldstone had Don Jr and Emin Agalarov agree on 9 June for Trump Tower. The problem is that
Goldstone invented most of the conversation, he told Veselnitskaya via Emin, that Don Jr
could help her arrange a Senate hearing about Browder, and told Don Jr she would have
"dirt"on Hillary.
Even if Browder has a good reason for this, it is still obstruction of Justice, most
likely can throw in Conspiracy to Interfere with the Election as a foreign agent by giving
Steele a fake meeting. Browder desperately wanted to discredit Simpson, and it's likely
Browder suggested Winer hire Simpson, so he can get embroiled with the Steele Dossier.
Haruspex , July 6, 2019 at 00:27
And the Phoenix tarmac meeting was about grandchildren and golf between two people who
never chatted socially. And you are trying to claim, the architect of the Steele dossier, had
nothing to do with Veselnitskaya meeting the Trump team? That it's coincidental? And it's
coincidental that Mike Isikoff runs into Jim Baker and warns him about the Steele dossier?
And it's coincidental that some unconnected oil industry specialist in London all of a
suddenly becomes the most courted man in Europe once it's determined he is associated with
Trump's campaign? And it's coincidental that Nellie Ohr gets a ham radio license the month
after Adm Rogers tossed her off all US intel data sites? And it's coincidental that Nellie is
married to the DoJ conduit between Steele and the FBI? Too many coincidences and in law
enforcement, they teach you there is no such thing as coincidences.
Garrett Connelly , July 4, 2019 at 20:03
Seemingly normal congressional representatives became obsessed with sanctions and passing
the Magnitsky Act.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2019 at 19:20
Mueller is a deep state spy who's "investigation" was nothing but an effort to cover up
the deep state's efforts to direct the outcome of the 2016 election. They get away with this,
and they'll be at it again in 2020. Our democracy is toast.
rosemerry , July 4, 2019 at 16:54
The excellent film by Andrei Nekrasov has been unavailable for at least a year. It shows
too clearly the falsity of the Browder charges, but somehow Browder is supported by those in
high places, since it is impossible to find the film anywhere. (I saw it twice online last
year before the complete blackout).
How many people here find the Skripal story in the UK to be as false? We have Theresa
May's word for all the relevant "facts" and that is all.
Experience tells us that US government/intel statements need to be backed up by perfect
evidence or they should be considered propaganda. With regards to Russia, the 5 Eyes have
told us nothing but lies for the last 5 years.
Stan W. , July 4, 2019 at 12:10
The Browder hoax would make a good sequel to the 1966 movie "The Russians Are Coming! The
Russians Are Coming!"
jsinton , July 4, 2019 at 10:15
We keep coming back to Browder. Browder is Russiagate is my sense.
Brian James , July 4, 2019 at 10:14
This will reveal their ultimate goal!
Jul 1, 2019 Democrat Calls On Tech Giants To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris
Debate
Elizabeth Warren Calls On Big Tech To Censor Conservatives Over Kamala Harris Debate.
You are right that censorship was one of the goals of Russia Gate. Because of it we got
Hamilton 68 that said they were able to tell us what tweets came from Russian trolls or
bots.
The Integrity Initiative is another company created during this time and they have stuck
around and then there's NewsGuard who is putting its buttons on Microsoft web browsers.
Facebook, Twitter and Google all changed their algorithms and alternative websites were so
downgraded that some lost up to 90% of their readership. This all came into being after
someone leaked the DNC computers and podesta emails and gave them to Wikileaks. Hillary's
campaign said that if they blamed it on Russia then no one would focus on their content. It
worked. The DNC rigging the primary is considered CT on many leftists sites.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:44
Thanks for another great article that gives us a glimpse behind the curtain. It would be
great if the truth regarding Browder were to make it into the mainstream, but I have my
doubts about that being possible. People like Mueller and the MSM lackeys are protectors of
the powerful. What Robert Parry called the "mighty Wurlitzer" keeps the truth drowned out
except for our small "sound proof free speech zone" here at CN and similar sites.
For people who wish to take a look at the "evil Rooskies" from a more realistic angle, I
highly recommend Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" I am just finishing it and it is a good
read.
Amazing how long the fraud has been going on, hiding in plain sight, Mueller a clear
player for the corrupt Deep State! We who read Consortium News have been informed about
Browder's fraudulent claims for the entire 2+ years of this ongoing chicanery. The swamp muck
is deep and thick, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is embedded in it. The confluence of swamp
creatures is odd, many don't even interact but they do in strange ways, all by lying. Thanks
for this article, hope for an end to the lies although the US truth decay is pretty far
advanced, maybe a sign it is collapsing ?!
Michael Collins , July 4, 2019 at 00:48
I think the Magnitsky Act is profoundly arrogant and not in our national interest.
I believe that Russia's intervention in Syria was essential and positive.
I'm not convinced that the Dutch report on MH17 has any persuasive power. This site had
the first insider source info that the missile was launched by the Ukrainians.
Having said that, I must say that this article is pure propaganda.
"Collusion" is a pure Republican propaganda term straight from Trump and his acolyte Barr.
The term is the straw man that forms the basis of the author's argument. The Mueller Report
outlines numerous contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign. Were they just chatting
about the weather or were the Russians trying to apply influence.
Whether or not Mueller could prove a conspiracy to commit a crime doe not take away from
the clear meddling by the Russians. In terms of outcome, Trump's performance in Helsinki is
the best argument for Russians influence. He was Putin's bot.
T,J , July 4, 2019 at 02:48
Michael, you got it right in your first three sentences but then, alas, you allowed your
imagination to run wild. The truth is that the Russians had little or no effect on the result
of the 2016 elections. The Democrats, alone, were responsible through their own incompetence
for the election result and even with their poor choice of candidate they could still have
won. The Mueller thing is just a distraction. By not admitting this, to themselves, they have
probably forfeited the 2020 election.
Mark Kelly , July 4, 2019 at 09:48
Quantity or quality? Has the FBI tracked the number of contacts other campaigns have with
foreigners, even Russians ? Obama, McCain, Bushes, Clinton's, Kerry, etc?
It would be rather
difficult for a campaign not to have documented contacts with foreign nationals, and the
Trump contacts like Sessions running into Kislack at receptions seem innocuous. We do know
that one campaign actually hired a foreign agent to obtain information from Russia about an
opponent and stated that highly placed Kremlin military and intelligence provided information
on Trump which was pitched to numerous media outlets.Of course, controlling a few hundred
million derived from a sale of control of uranium market is of no interest. These two events
seem a bit weightier than Mr. Goldstone's tee-shirt.
Mueller may have been a prisoner of his staff, we'll see how knowledgeable he is about what
is in the report, if he actually answers questions . ( Huddles with counsel "Cannot answer,
its classified .") Then wait for IG and Barr investigations .
Mr.Parry immediately smelled a great big rat using historical Russiaphobia
Clark M Shanahan , July 4, 2019 at 10:11
"Trump's performance in Helsinki is the best argument for Russians influence. He was
Putin's bot."
So the dropping of the INF Treaty and the continued massive arms build-up in the ex-Soviet
satellites is simply cover for Evil Vlad's real plans of world domination?
Same with Bolton's failed coup in Venezuela and our arming and training of Ukraine's fascist
Azov Battalion?
Michael,
Did you know Putin provided us our primary Afghan supply line and introduced us to
Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, all-the-while warning us of the real dangers of creating a
quagmire?
rosemerry , July 4, 2019 at 17:00
Pathetic conclusion. Pres.Putin, with all the faults cast upon him from the West, cannot
be considered to be stupid. All the "interference", which he denies (and unlike Trump he is
NOT a liar) would be uncharacteristic and counterproductive, like the alleged
novichok/perfume poisoning in the UK of someone already punished and exchanged, by alleged
"GRU operatives" botching the job.
bjd , July 3, 2019 at 21:08
What an excellent article!
The author provides another view –from a whole other angle yet again– showing
how the Mueller Report is more a work of uninspired wordsmithery and linguistic trickery
(with one or two –sometimes not even that carefully– hidden objectives), than an
unambiguous work of judicious scrutiny.
The more of this is revealed, the more the holy Mueller comes forth as an old, tired cop,
that has long lost the fine tricks of the trade, who was only still capable of the crude
tricks of the trade. His pathology and tragedy is that he doesn't see it himself; it is
likely to become his downfall when he testifies.
Most readers of Consortium News from around the Earth understand the immensity of the
Browder-Magnitsky scandal, and so then they are certainly hugely appreciative of Lucy
Komisar's years-long reporting on the scandal, plus thankful to Consortium News for
exhibiting the moral courage to publish Ms. Komisar's truly bombshell, Earth-shaking article.
Those people around the world yet unaware of this profound and historically important
situation will now, undoubtedly, become fully aware – and soon.
Every candidate from every political party in America running for the office of President
of the United States in 2020 will find it impossible to avoid this just-revealed
800,000,000-pound elephant standing in/on the living room known as planet Earth, as well as
find it impossible to respond in any manner but in 100% alignment with the truth. There are
nothing but positive consequences coming from this truly historic development – most
especially, the forthcoming global paradigm shift featuring exponentially greater
effectiveness of international law in deterrence of major criminality. It is a moving and
humbling experience to witness. Thank you sincerely.
Jerry L.! that was a tremendous piece of editorial writing! . I have been on the trail of
this " MAGNITZKY Sting thing Josef Mifsud is the key man of not so much mystery any more ! I
have been on this William Browder Grifter of the Hoover Institute _Stanford John Perkins .
Book " Confessions of a Economic Hitman " is eye opening . look into Edmond Safra his bizarre
demise or death in 1999' in the middle of Monaco Principality Párkinson had ravaged
Mr. SAFRA a third generation manifestation of Lebanon and Jewish Global financial markets
Financiers Of renowned Edmond Safra was from family heritage of movers and shakers of Global
financial markets and currency manipulators from the Middle Ages! Rick – Él
Cuban cowboy ( 702.767.0072)) hope all is well
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 19:12
This article, which I thank Consortium News for publishing, and its author, Lucy Komisar
for researching and writing, is very important for a number of reasons.
Those who know the history of what happened to Russia and the Russian people when U$
"experts", vulture capitalists and B-School grads, descended on Russia for a sportive
slaughter of its economy, all the better to create an oligarchic class and impoverish the
many while providing many of those "experts" lucrative, even obscenely lucrative rewards,
among them William Browder.
Those who have seen the film, "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes.", by Andrei Nekrasov
know that Nekrasov had a sea-change experience, shared by viewers of the film who get a
front-seat, close-up look at what went on. That any who see the film could possibly retain a
favorable impression of Browder is very hard to imagine.
That so very much has been done to suppress any public or widespread showing of the film
speaks, eloquently and succinctly, to the motivations, if not expressly exposing the reasons,
for the suppression.
Clearly, when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act, in 2012, few of those who voted for that
law had seen the film or else they made no serious efforts to ascertain the actual facts.
Perhaps, they did not care to know the facts or, worse, do not care, at all, what the facts
actually were.
One hopes that among the questions posed to Robert Mueller will be several seeking clarity
about something he, rather obviously, got very wrong, about the infamous "meeting" at Trump
Tower.
Mueller's apparent lack of curiosity and equally apparent willingness to accept so very
many things at face value, based solely on what he was told, without, so it seems, any
genuine effort on his part to look more deeply, to actually investigate beyond what really is
hearsay, does not paint a picture of an intrepid, dogged pursuit of facts and actual
evidence, but rather a slipshod pretense while unctously playing the make believe role of
"Special Counsel".
His special guest appearance before Congress may well not be a reprise of a Cameo Role,
but an opportunity to win the Lifetime Oscar for Pusillanimous Leading Man.
The Democrats who have arranged this awards ceremony, thinking they are about to unearth
manifold riches, may well find that they have bitten off far more crow than they can possibly
chew.
Russiagate may yet become a dead albatross piece of neck ware for those banking on its
bonanza.
The "Ineffective Opposition" may soon confirm its utter uselessness, even as Robert
Mueller may find the very real need to embark on a costly "brand" restoration.
At least, this Second Coming, of Mueller will possibly provide a brief and hilarious
respite from the Democratic Debate Circus floperation. And the media is sure to love it,
Trump Tweets and all.
Seriously?
Once again, my appreciation for this timely and important article, which ties together a
plethora of peculiarities particularly perceptively well.
Nick , July 4, 2019 at 00:47
Mueller's lack of curiosity is something people in Boston are well aware of. He was the US
Attorney here when his FBI was covering up for Whitey Bulger, the murderous drug kingpin.
It's crazy, because now, to these same people in Boston, he's the saint who's gonna bring
down Trump. The fact that he got away in the late 90s when his FBI agents all came up filthy
with gifts from this gangster, and was subsequently able to work his way into an FBI
directorship, shows that this dude is a skillful liar, and more one of omission than
commission.
He'll turn up every rock looking for dirt on Trump, but if someone says 'Your
boy's dirt is under that rock,' he'll just pretend he didn't see it. There is no reason to
ever trust him at all. Dude is an awful investigator, and should have been disbarred when it
came to light that Agent John Connolly tipped off Whitey Bulger about a bug that State Police
put in the Lancaster St. Garage, which served as Whitey's office. John Connolly is in prison,
and his boss is lionized as a hero.
Seer , July 4, 2019 at 11:35
I too watched the film: subtle reminder- people ought to be sure to pay for it!
Seems to be similar to the well choreographed story of The White Helmets. The deception is
so widespread that it's nearly impossible to fully expose.
Seems that the Deep State HAS to
be involved in here somewhere: I've claimed that the CIA (and or FBI) was active in ensuring
Sanders wouldn't rise above HRC in the 2016 campaign; the trail was leading here so the
"players" unleashed the Russiagate circus (and we didn't even get any bread with it!).
Jerry Markatos , July 3, 2019 at 18:59
After watching the important film by Andrei Nekrasov, "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the
Scenes," I was embarrassed for the New Yorker and their running a puff piece with swindler
Browder anointing himself as a brave human rights hero standing up to the Russians. I hope
I'm not the only one who wrote the New Yorker editor urging a visit to Consortiumnews and an
evening with Nekrasov's docudrama. Robert Parry in a brief series of questions to people who
knew Sergei Magnitsky and an investigative reporter's nose for fraud, swiftly offered key
truths about the Magnitsky affair to readers of this site. If anyone else sees a possibility
of a mainstream magazine having an appetite either for detailing a fascinating and
consequential fraud or a willingness to eat crow, have at it!
Clark M Shanahan , July 4, 2019 at 10:48
The New Yorker and the lion's share of our MSM and late night talk shows (Colbert,
foremost) became collateral damage to Coronated-Hill's Clown-Car Fiasco.
Hill successfully projected her loss into the victimization of nearly half of the Nation.
Many of the enablers of this hoax must know better, using the "ends justify the means"
rationalization; as our self-appointed "protector" Colbert.
Robert Parry was clearly spot on about Browder and his fraud.
But the fraudster will not just go away, why should he, if he has been so successful in
his deception and fraud. Now we see that he is "leading" a charge against money laundering in
some of the European banks. If nothing else, the fraudster "continues:"
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an
Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth
Porter •
July 23, 2019
While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an
Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal
while the British acted legally.
The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British
ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence
indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted
that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."
But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.
The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.
This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions
against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships
through international straits.
The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May
as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.
Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on
sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The
EU Council regulation in question
specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business
entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."
The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait
of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A
maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has
no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued
a regulation to provide what it would claim
as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there
were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.
The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar
Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement
by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any
mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.
There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually
impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims
territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas
the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of
the middle of the Strait.
But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace
1 was in the shipping lane heading east
toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the
coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this
live view of typical ship traffic
through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters
at any time before it was boarded.
But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally
seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union,
establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation
for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage
of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.
These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing,
and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering
states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns
and thus a violation of the treaty.
The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration
to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.
The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the
decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it
was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he
nor the British wished to reveal.
BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears
the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British
seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge
reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."
Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on
the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.
Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration
reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance.
This decision was accompanied by
political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian
state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.
That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities.
The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions,
warned those
entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a
self-insured Iranian tanker.
But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern
tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System
data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority
delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National
Security Council issued an alert
claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities
of some regimes led by terrorist groups."
The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.
The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with
that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit
a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary
American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.
Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim
that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author
of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are
falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork).
However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN
sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say
US lapdog).
Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped
there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales
aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did.
Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was
even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might
come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing
into the cargo hold.
The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention
the ones who broke international law.
Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its
face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe
the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the
bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's
objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".
The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens
is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a
Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.
Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN
treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific
countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special
about the EU, because it is an acronym?
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international
waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign
minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/30...
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us
a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump
Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will
not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the
Brits not also want war?
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to
get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a
hat.
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to
support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him.
So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time
now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.
The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so
new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those
contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is
coming faster than you think.
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
Mr Johnson,
This would tie in to your (correct imo) observations of apparent untruths in the Mueller
Dossier, and with Mr Habakkuk's comment above.
Re: The Trump Tower meeting and Russian attorney Veselnitskaya - journalist Lucy Komisar
interviewed Veselnitskaya twice Nov 2018 iirc, and has found another apparent untruth.
Komisar does not believe William Browder of Magnitsky Act fame, and Komisar's article backs
up that claim, relating that to the Trump Tower meeting and the Mueller Dossier.
FTA - "the (Mueller) report on this topic is deceptive...the report itself lies about the
issue the meeting addressed."
"It wasn't to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton...That was a ploy by Robert
Goldstone...(Goldstone) got the lawyer (Veselnitskaya) the meeting for her to lobby a
potentially incoming administration against the Magnitsky Act..."
"Veselnitskaya testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2017 that
Browder's major American client, the Ziff brothers, had cheated on American and Russian taxes
and contributed the "dirty money" to the Democrats."
You and Mr Habakkuk should be aware Jeff Carlson (Epoch Times) is a "Q" follower (Trust The
Plan), fwiw.
Aaron Mate, although a flaming Socialist Progressive, is top notch. imo
Thank you for your continuing research on this.
Thanks again to the Colonel for allowing the intrusion.
Regards.
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
"... The Epstein case has all the earmarks of CIA protection of an asset. ..."
"... Successful entry into politics requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV" badge? ..."
"... Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in Iraq? ..."
Journalism. =>has disclosed the tunnel, and a few of its investigators are exploring
its contents, expecting to find at the end of this tunnel Successful entry into politics
requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV"
badge?
Wonder if this has traction in the persons involved in Grace I, the failure of JCPOA.
Is the CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world?
Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm?
Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of
politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he
spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in
Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
"... Same old, same old, same old, same old. Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be different. There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel. Honest. ..."
Like the "withdrawal from Syria", a typically fleeting idea?
Breaking a few treaties? Ratcheting up support of the carnage and starvation in Yemen?
The "comparatively great" side of Trump is attention deficiency disorder, so it is hard
for him to start a war, something that requires some degree of organization and coordinating
different branches of governments, different countries etc.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 17:02
Nailed it!
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing: this
was my only hope when refusing to vote for HRC.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
At the same time, the administration has signaled in recent days that it plans to let the
New Start treaty, negotiated by Barack Obama, expire in February 2021 rather than renew it
for another five years. John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who met
with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, in Jerusalem this week, said before leaving
Washington that "there's no decision, but I think it's unlikely" the treaty would be
renewed.
Mr. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of arms control agreements, said that New Start was flawed
because it did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery
systems. "So to extend for five years and not take these new delivery system threats into
account would be malpractice," he told The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet.
Like all of his complaints about arms control agreements, Bolton's criticisms of New START
are made in bad faith. Opponents of New START have long pretended that they oppose the treaty
because it did not cover everything imaginable, including tactical nuclear weapons, but this
has always been an excuse for them to reject a treaty that they have never wanted ratified in
the first place. If the concern about negotiating a treaty that covered tactical nuclear
weapons were genuine, the smart thing to do would be to extend New START and then begin
negotiations for a more comprehensive arms control agreement. Faulting New START for failing to
include things that are by definition not going to be included in a strategic arms reduction
treaty gives the game away. This is what die-hard opponents of the treaty have been doing for
almost ten years, and they do it because they want to dismantle the last vestiges of arms
control. The proposal to include China as part of a new treaty is another tell that the Trump
administration just wants the treaty to die.
The article concludes:
Some experts suspect talk of a three-way accord is merely a feint to get rid of the New
Start treaty. "If a trilateral deal is meant as a substitute or prerequisite for extending
New Start, it is a poison pill, no ifs, ands or buts," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive
director of the Arms Control Association. "If the president is seeking a trilateral deal as a
follow-on to New Start, that's a different thing."
Knowing Bolton, it has to be a poison pill. Just as Bolton is ideologically opposed to
making any deal with Iran, he is ideologically opposed to any arms control agreement that
places limits on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The "flaws" he identifies aren't really flaws that
he wants to fix (and they may not be flaws at all), but excuses for trashing the agreement. He
will make noises about how the current deal or treaty doesn't go far enough, but the truth is
that he doesn't want any agreements to exist. In Bolton's worldview, nonproliferation and arms
control agreements either give the other government too much or hamper the U.S. too much, and
so he wants to destroy them all. He has had a lot of success at killing agreements and treaties
that have been in the U.S. interest. Bolton has had a hand in blowing up the Agreed Framework
with North Korea, abandoning the ABM Treaty, killing the INF Treaty, and reneging on the JCPOA.
Unless the president can be persuaded to ignore or fire Bolton, New START will be his next
victim.
If New START dies, it will be a loss for both the U.S. and Russia, it will make the world
less secure, and it will make U.S.-Russian relations even worse. The stability that these
treaties have provided has been important for U.S. security for almost fifty years. New START
is the last of the treaties that constrain the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and when it
is gone there will be nothing to replace it for a long time. The collapse of arms control
almost certainly means that the top two nuclear weapons states will expand their arsenals and
put us back on the path of an insane and unwinnable arms race. Killing New START is irrational
and purely destructive, and it needs to be opposed.
bolton is opposed to any treaty, to any agreement, whereby the other side can expect to
obtain equally favorable terms-he wants the other side on their knees permanently without
any expectation of compromise by the empire.
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
This is just think tank swamp vapor. No real analysis, no real recommendation on adaption of the USA to the collapse of global neoliberal
system (aka the USA empire)
At the heart of the alignment between China and Russia is their shared interest in undermining U.S. influence globally. The two
countries are united in their mutual displeasure with the United States and the U.S.-dominated international order that they feel
disadvantages them. But while Russia and China may have initially banded together in discontent, their repeated engagement on areas
of mutual interest is fostering a deeper and enduring partnership.
It is clear that China will pose the greatest challenge to U.S. interests for the foreseeable future, but Beijing's increasing
collaboration with Moscow will amplify that challenge.
... ... ...
Washington must come to terms with this China-Russia alignment and work to address and manage it. To contain the depth of alignment,
Washington must look for opportunities to strain the seams in the Russia-China relationship. Russia and China may be drawing closer,
but their interests -- and especially their approaches -- are not identical. Russia and China compete in the Middle East, for example,
for military sales and nuclear energy deals. And their very different approaches to Europe could be a source of strain. In communicating
with Beijing, Washington should underscore how Russian interference in these countries could generate instability that threatens
China's growing economic interests.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is focused on combating China's unfair economic practices, a worthy undertaking. But any trade
war "victory" will be incomplete if Washington does not address Beijing's challenge, in collaboration with Moscow, to the very fabric
of the rules-based order that underpins continued U.S. global leadership and prosperity. Washington will be ineffective if it seeks
to go it alone. Pushing back against the illiberal influence of an aligned Russia and China will require the collective heft of Allies
and partners. The time is ripe to tackle this issue with America's European Allies. Europe has grown more attuned to -- and concerned
about -- the threat that China poses and shares the U.S. imperative to compete with Russia and China.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a senior fellow and director of the Center for New American Security's Transatlantic Security Center.
Contents of the article correlate extremely poorly with the title... I don't see even a semblance of a "containment plan" other
than a vague outline that US should ask EU countries something as of yet unspecified...
With regard to ongoing US threats directed against Iran:
Whereas a "bloody nose" missile attack directed against specific targets in Iran cannot be
ruled out, a conventional war theatre including ground war operations directed against Iran is
almost an impossibility without the support of Turkey and Pakistan, both of which are "sleeping
with the enemy".
Turkey is a NATO heavyweight which is allied with Iran and Russia. Pakistan is allied with
China and Iran. Both Turkey and Pakistan have borders with Iran.
The Pentagon's policy of "encirclement" of Iran formulated in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War
is defunct. Iran has good relations with neighbouring countries including Turkey, Iraq and
Pakistan. All three countries have refused to collaborate with Washington.
Needless to say the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also in crisis. America can no no
longer rely on its staunchest allies.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
America's largest military facility in the Middle East the Al-Udeid military base in Qatar
is now situated in a country which is (unofficially) a partner and de facto ally of Iran. Qatar
has switched sides. It has broken its relations with Saudi Arabia. While retaining good
bilateral relations with the US, Qatar is nonetheless aligned with Iran (and Turkey).
Moreover, since 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in jeopardy. The Sultanate of
Oman which together with Iran guards the Strait of Hormuz entry into the Persian Gulf is also
unofficially aligned with Iran.
US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in Enemy Territory
Moreover, while the US air force has relocated part of its capabilities to Saudi Arabia, the
Al-Udeid military base in Qatar still "officially" hosts the Middle East "forward headquarters"
of US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in a country which is de facto aligned with an enemy of the
United States of America.
The United States welcomed Qatar's generous offer to expand critical facilities at bases
used by US forces in the country and to align operating procedures at these bases with Nato
standards, thereby increasing the operational capability of US and coalition forces based in
Qatar.
Ironically, the US and Qatar signed an Memorandum of Understanding "enabling deeper
co-ordination on potential expansion at Al Udeid Air Base."
Not withstanding the rhetoric underlying official US-Qatar ties, The Atlantic Council, a
think tank, which has close ties to both the Pentagon and NATO confirms that Qatar is now a
firm ally of both Turkey and Iran:
Put simply, for Qatar to maintain its independence, Doha will have essentially no choice
but to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey, which has been an important ally from the
perspective of military support and food security, as well as Iran. The odds are good that
Iranian-Qatari ties will continue to strengthen even if Tehran and Doha agree to disagree on
certain issues On June 15, President Hassan Rouhani emphasized
that improving relations with Qatar is a high priority for Iranian policymakers. Rouhani
told the
Qatari emir that "stability and security of regional countries are intertwined" and Qatar's
head of state, in turn, stressed
that Doha seeks a stronger partnership with the Islamic Republic. (Atlantic Council, June
2019)
The structure of alliances is in jeopardy. The US cannot reasonably wage a full-fledged
conventional theatre war on Iran without the support of its longstanding allies which are now
sleeping with the enemy.
This of course does not exclude other forms of warfare, including
targeted missile attacks which could lead to escalation,
economic warfare and sanctions,
cyber warfare,
political destabilization and regime change,
the selective use of advanced weapons systems (e.g. electromagnetic warfare,
environmental modification techniques (ENMOD), climatic warfare, the use of biological and
chemical weapons)
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 22, 2019
***
A major and far-reaching shift in military alliances is unfolding.
While Turkey is still "officially" a member of NATO, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
has been developing "friendly relations" with two of America's staunchest enemies, namely Iran
and Russia. (see image right).
US-Turkey military cooperation (including US air force bases in Turkey) dates back to the
Cold War. Today Turkey is sleeping with the enemy. And Trump has ("rhetorically") declared war
on Turkey.
We are ready for war, says President Erdogan.
"The secret to successful states is their readiness for war. We are ready with everything
we have," (Erdogan's statement on August 12, 2018 meeting with ambassadors in Ankara)
Erdogan also accuses the US of waging a "financial warfare" against Turkey. Turkish banks are under attack. In turn, a banking crisis is unfolding in the European Union
largely hitting EU banks which hold substantial portions of Turkey's debt.
According to Turkey's president:
"It is everyone's observation that the developments in foreign currency exchange have no
financial basis and they are an attack on our country On the one hand you are a strategic
ally and the other you shoot (the country) in the foot. Is something like this acceptable?" (
Ahvalnews
)
While the media has its eyes riveted on the collapse of the Turkish Lira (which so far in
2018 has lost approximately 40 percent of its value in relation to the US dollar), NATO is in a
state of disarray, with one of its member states "at war" with another member state, namely the
United States of America.
Turkey by a long shot has the largest conventional forces (after the US) within NATO
outpacing France, Britain and Germany, (not to mention its tactical B61 nuclear weapons
capabilities).
#NATOExit
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ib4syl7rno
Broadly speaking, the US-Turkey rift and its implications for the Atlantic Alliance are
either ignored or trivialized by the media. The entire structure of military alliances is
defunct. NATO is in a shambles.
Turkey is to acquire Russia's state of the art S-400 air defense system. Why?
Does this mean that Turkey which is a NATO member state will withdraw from the integrated
US-NATO-Israel air defense system? Such a decision is tantamount to NATOExit.
"On July 26, the US Congress decided to ban the shipment of F-35 aircraft to Turkey unless
Ankara refused to purchase S-400 anti-aircraft systems from Russia." (Pravda)
The US-Turkey-Israel "Triple Alliance" is Also Defunct
In 1993, Israel and Turkey signed a Memorandum of Understanding leading to the
creation of (Israeli-Turkish) "joint committees" to handle so-called regional threats. Under
the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed "to cooperate in gathering intelligence
on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and
these countries' military capabilities."
Image on the right: Sharon and Erdogan in 2004
The triple alliance was also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement
which included "many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint
military exercises." These military cooperation ties with NATO were viewed by the Israeli
military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies
threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria."
The "triple alliance" linking the US, Israel and Turkey was coordinated by the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff. It was an integrated and coordinated military command structure pertaining to
the broader Middle East. It was based on close bilateral US military ties respectively with
Israel and Turkey, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and
Ankara. In this regard, Israel and Turkey have been close partners with the US in planned
aerial attacks on Iran since 2005. (
See Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005 )
Needless to say, that triple alliance is defunct. With Turkey siding with Iran and Russia,
it would be "suicide" for US-Israel to even consider waging aerial attacks on Iran.
Moreover, the NATO-Israel 2005 military cooperation agreement which relied heavily on the
role of Turkey is dysfunctional.
What this means is that US-Israeli threats directed against Iran are no longer supported by
Turkey which has entered into an alliance of convenience with Iran.
The broader Realignment of Military alliances
The shift in military alliances is not limited to Turkey. Following the rift between Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray with Qatar siding with Iran
and Turkey against Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar is of utmost strategic significance because
it shares with Iran the world's largest maritime gas fields in the Persian Gulf. (see map
below)
The Al-Udeid military base near Doha is America's largest military base in the Middle East.
In turn, Turkey has now established its own military facility in Qatar.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
A profound shift in geopolitical alliances is also occurring in South Asia with the
instatement in 2017 of both India and Pakistan as full members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO). Inevitably, this historic shift constitutes a blow against Washington,
which has defense and trade agreements with both Pakistan and India. "While India remains
firmly aligned with Washington, America's political stranglehold on Pakistan (through military
and intelligence agreements) has been weakened as a result of Pakistan's trade and investment
deals with China." (
Michel Chossudovsky , August 1, 2017)
In other words, this enlargement of the SCO weakens America's hegemonic ambitions in both
South Asia and the broader Eurasian region. It has a bearing on energy pipeline routes,
transport corridors, borders and mutual security and maritime rights.
Pakistan is the gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, where US influence has been
weakened to the benefit of China, Iran and Turkey. China is involved in major investments in
mining, not to mention the development of transport routes which seek the integration of
Afghanistan into Western China.
Where does Turkey fit in? Turkey is increasingly part of the Eurasian project dominated by
China and Russia. In 2017-18, Erdogan had several meetings with both president Xi-Jingping and
Vladimir Putin. Erdogan has been contemplating becoming a member of the SCO since 2016 but
sofar nothing concrete has emerged.
The Antiwar Movement: #NATOExit People's Movement
Of crucial significance, the crisis within NATO constitutes a historic opportunity to
develop a #NATOExit people's movement across Europe and North America , a people's movement
pressuring governments to withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance, a movement to eventually
dismantle and abolish the military and political apparatus of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global
Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged
together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
"... "Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?" ..."
"... "Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose? Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240 billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27 billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing our market... ..."
"... "Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis] ..."
"... Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance. ..."
"... What's happening is a titanic struggle to make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy. ..."
I'd like barflies to ponder the following thought/probability: Radar Saturated
Environment--radiation not from just individual, discreet, identifiable points, but from such
a vast multitude that no single point can be discerned.
To further my brainstorming de-escalation, I'd like to point out what Putin said in his
Direct Line
yesterday about the economic war being waged against Russia in accordance with the Ukraine
Coup in 2014. Pavel Zarubin asks:
"Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western
sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are
appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to
everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?"
I thought this a capital question very similar to Iran's dilemma. Putin's response is
quite long, so I won't cite it all. Rather, I'll limit it to his initial reply and conclusion
as they both deal with the Big Picture:
"First, what does it mean 'to make peace'? We have not fought with anyone and have no
desire to fight with anyone.
"Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose?
Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of
these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240
billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27
billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing
our market....
"Now to the question of whether some things would be different if we give in and abandon
our fundamental national interests. We are not talking about reconciliation here. Perhaps
there will be some external signals, but no drastic change. Look, the People's Republic of
China has nothing to do with Crimea and Donbass, does it? We are accused of occupying
Donbass, which is nonsense and a lie.
But China has nothing to do with it, and yet the tariffs for Chinese goods are rising,
which is almost the same as sanctions.
"Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The
objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global
rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will
continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become
stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis]
This year's Direct Line was as usual filled with domestic issues some that lead to foreign
policy issues. The overall scope and distinctness of the minutia are as vast as Russia. I've
followed these over the years and note they reveal Russia's strengths and fragilities. I'm
tempted to cite more but will leave it to the reader to pursue, but after 90 minutes you
still won't be finished because the transcript isn't yet complete, which while frustrating is
also amazing.
Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's
a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few
days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he
uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual
Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance.
What's happening is a titanic struggle to
make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy.
..Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration.
Look at what we in the US have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the
right. I suppose we deserve this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
"... Except for Afghanistan, the "Arc of Crisis" hasn't been all that successful as far as creating instability to Russia's south, and it hasn't been all that successful in promoting Anglo-American hegemony either. However, it has been wildly successful in perpetuating the "arc of instability" that justifies US military spending, so the MIC is quite well satisfied with the policies whether the broader interests and security of the British and American people are served well by the policy or not. ..."
"... Interesting to note that Daesh only ever appear to be attacking the traditional enemies of the Zionist. ..."
"... Daesh are like another Gladio, but on steroids. ..."
Yes. Originally, creation of the "Arc of Crisis" was proposed by Bernard Lewis as a means to divide and rule, which has always
been the British Empire's mody operandi , and Zbigniew Brzezinski wanted to create an "Arc of Crisis" all along the southern
border of the USSR and later, Russia.
Except for Afghanistan, the "Arc of Crisis" hasn't been all that successful as far as creating instability to Russia's south,
and it hasn't been all that successful in promoting Anglo-American hegemony either. However, it has been wildly successful in
perpetuating the "arc of instability" that justifies US military spending, so the MIC is quite well satisfied with the policies
whether the broader interests and security of the British and American people are served well by the policy or not.
There are many different aspects to this, like from the moment that large numbers of prisoners on death row in S.A. were given
the ultimatum for joining the FSA or decline and face certain execution.
Too often regions are deliberately being exploited by greedy individuals and mixed into politics.
Interesting to note that Daesh only ever appear to be attacking the traditional enemies of the Zionist.
The Tax Justice Network, organized in 2003 to fight offshore tax evasion and corruption,
has censored a podcast its founding director recorded when I spoke at the Offshore Alert
Conference in November in London. I didn't write about this before now, because I though the
TJN leaders might change their minds. But it turns out they are either cowardly or
corrupt.
####
Browder's tentacles run far, but only as far as his backers allow him, which leads me to
ask 'what would it take for them to drop him'? Browder has a shelf-life and at some point he
will be surplus to requirement .
That's a very sad story. You can really only take on someone like Browder when you have
nothing to lose – it seems that as soon as you attract interest at an organizational
level, it turns out that organization is afraid of losing its funding, and bows to the power
which threatens to take it away. Note that he was not able to intimidate Nekrasov into not
making his film, but he was able to browbeat theatres into not showing it.
Sooner or later it will all come crashing down for Browder. But The USA will protect him
until they have something to replace the Magnitsky Act so they can continue to legally
discriminate against Russia. If Browder goes down, the act he worked so hard to get on the
books will be revealed as partisan bullshit, and nobody in the west wants that.
Astoundingly arrogant, not to mention immature. If Russia produced a study on how to destroy
America, there would be screams of rage at the unmitigated evil which must motivate a
national effort to wreck the economy of another, and cause misery and social collapse for
millions of people who were completely innocent. But only the Exceptional Nation can discuss
it impassively, as if the study were nothing more than a coffee-table book. Because, you
know, it is destined to rule and to triumph over all. So many parallels to Rome, yes, yes.
Americans were blessed with a wonderful, rich and bountiful country. Instead of being
content with it, the repellent US government has set its sights on world domination so as to
draw upon global wealth to increase American personal wealth and influence. It really sees
itself as sitting at the pinnacle of a global empire in which all other countries are either
vassals or resources. And the American people, while you could not really call them
complicit, are mostly sold on the notion that this is their birthright as Americans, and that
anyone who tries to forestall its unfolding in this fashion is trying to upset the natural
order of things. Americans cannot be content with simply having America – they have to
own and control it all. Oddly enough, the very ambition which was attributed to the
Communists.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and
imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of
a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current
political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the
rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than
one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous system,
the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to
bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight
but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and poor Fido
finally collapses dead in a heap.
So, what is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia? Why bothering to hint
on better relations? Noted in the press conference was the absence of Pompeo's moralizing,
limiting itself on US position on issues. What is the point in this flying back and
forth?
Yes, Iran -- and arms control. Venezuela -- and arms control. North Korea -- and arms
control. I think they are paranoid about Russian weapons. And if Iranians by any chance have
some of the new weaponry, providing perfect testing ground, would Russia own to that? What
was obvious, no concessions on any issue from Moscow. Not even softened language.
This time,
it is different. The economic and military power has shifted east, Europeans forever without
a spine this time are spineless in all directions, and it will come as a shock to the
establishment that the presumed animosity towards Iran in Gulf, will nowhere to be found. Wil
Saudis host US troops against Iran, Doubt that deeply.
There were some reports quoted in Alexander Mercouris has a much rosier
view of Trump's intentions
that the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran. The Pentagon has found
its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran.
@Endgame Napoleon Americans
probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. "
and they inquire why they hate us .
Don Bacon | May 11, 2019 11:56:00 AM | 23
@ ToivoS 16
the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran.
Yes, for the reasons I noted in my 4 above. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't
defend themselves, and that's not Iran. The recent US defeats in Iraq and Syria also sent a message. So the Pentagon is now content
with aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Somalia while spending big bucks to (supposedly) contend with Russia and China, which of
course is also out of the question when it comes to execution.
The Pentagon materiel acquisition system is riddled with corruption and poor management, the army is handicapped by low recruiting,
drugs and obesity, the navy suffers from performance and maintenance problems, and the air force has been decimated by personnel
problems and by an overly zealous procurement of useless F-35 prototypes. So bombers dropping bombs on villages in poor countries
is as far as the Pentagon can go.
On May 14/2019 Pompeo is to meet Lavrov in Sochi! ..."Pompeo is scheduled to meet with Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign
minister, in Sochi on May 14 to “discuss the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges.” Before that, he will meet with
officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow."...
A messenger boy on the errant trip overseas from his handlers. Something to tell in person, mano a mano no less.
..."“On May 13, he will arrive in Russia to meet with his team at U.S. Embassy Moscow before meeting with U.S. business leaders
and U.S. exchange alumni. Secretary Pompeo will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” State Department spokeswoman
Morgan Ortagus said."... That's rich, a nobody faces an unknown.
Correct Sam. From The Art of War to win one must know the enemy like one knows ones self.
There were terrible consequences for the failure of the West to know Hitler's intentions and
fail to act appropriately. England and France were duped by themselves into a policy of
submission until it was almost too late. England held on by a thread and somehow managed to
break the appeasement strategy and go on to total war. You know the "We shall fight them on
the Beaches" speeches which were the defining moments after the failed diplomacy that changed
the course of history.
But there is a problem with hindsight. Every hammer sees a problem as a nail. Our past
victories are, in the end, no prediction of our future successes. We need to evaluate every
emerging condition as an entirely new problem to be solved with no preconceptions. We need to
cast a wide net and explore multiple paths for the successful defense of the Nation. We need
to be able to correctly see the future and take actions.
This is where we have failed believing we have no existential threat we are willing to
admit to ourselves except for the old threadbare reasons we find solace and comfort in
dusting off the old playbook for World actions believing that the old plans will somehow
guarantee success.
We need to move beyond a model of our preeminence and our position as the leading nation
in the World which still relies on our former dominance and our ability to direct the course
of foreign nations.
The entire population of the Planet is growing stronger and more diverse. The voices from
emerging nations are growing louder. China is investing the cash they got from the West to
implement new strategies to provide basic services to developing nations. Their aim is not
philanthropy but eventual control.
We can no longer afford to expect that some foreign devil nation will rear its ugly head
so we can chop it's head off like we did in WWII. Instead we should be preparing for the new
frontier where former adversaries and allies are making inroads in building the new economies
of the future.
There is only one option. We need to stop focusing on our past victories and the methods
we used to achieve those victories and begin to correctly assess the opportunities out there
where we can still influence the rest of the World in positive ways. China and Russia are not
waiting for us to catch up.
Tedder , April 30, 2019 at 15:20
I have read that after WW II, the Soviets made overtures to the Truman government, but
those were rejected in favor of hostility. It seems the capitalists' fear of socialism
overcame good sense.
DW Bartoo , May 1, 2019 at 11:59
Truman knew Russia posed no threat to the U$, Tedder, but chose, like many a predecessor,
to create a monster, an enemy of fearful dimension and ruthless intent, to keep the highly
profitable militarization of the U$ going. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not
done to bring the Japanese to their knees, they were already there, it was to send a message
to the Soviet Union.
All that remained was to stoke domestic fear, inculcate loathing, and extend military
empire, as evidenced by what soon transpired on the Korean Peninsula.
U$ history courses omitt so very much, being most often hagiographic exercises designed to
impart unquestioning patriotism.
Truman instituted the peace-time draft for precisely the same reason, and Hollywood
supplied the fictive depictions designed to instill a manly notion of ass-kicking which would
dictate policy henceforth.
Truman and Eisenhower both knew that anti-communism was a lark, but it persuaded JFK to
begin the war against Vietnam (and Cambodia and other hapless nearby nations). Vietnam
presented no more threat to the U$ than had North Korea. Both were attacked to intimidate
China and the Soviet Union.
The claim was that the wars were necessary to stop the spread of "monolithic communism"
when, in fact, China and the Soviet Union were hardy bosom buddies and deeply distrusted each
other.
But it was FDR who really sought what has become the US empire.
Though you will find no mention of that in most U$ history courses, any more than you will
find but passing mention, if any at all, of General Smedley Butler, who made clear that his
task had not been to protect the people of the U$, in his foreign engagements, but to open
doors for banking and corporate interests.
We are at the tail end of a long series of provoked wars and fake news (when William R.
Hearst found a day without news, he simply invented it -- imagine what that means if today's
young historians seek to research the past by looking at "old" newspaper accounts).
Jeff Harrison , April 30, 2019 at 23:59
I would like to point out that the useless UN has repeatedly caved to US violations of
international law, the UN charter, and any number of UN sanctioned treaties. How, exactly, is
this any different than the League of Nations and Nazi Germany?
Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:31
Whoever moves into the White House, post ritual election, nothing much ever changes. As a
society, we are committrd to constant warfare. It pleases our national vanity.
Sam F , April 29, 2019 at 21:03
It is a very good thing that "extremist ideologues accelerate America's already evident
decline as a global power." It has long been apparent that US democracy cannot be saved from
the tyranny of the rich, who now control all of its tools of democracy: its elections, mass
media, and judiciary. Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must be watered with the
blood of tyrants" every 20 years or so, now long overdue. Certainly the US can only be
rebuilt from a very low state, when the rich have been controlled and prohibited, if it is to
be saved from violent revolution or conquest. So its economic destruction by imbecile
demagogues is a blessing indeed, every step of the way. Let them take America to the
recycling center, the sooner to be reworked as a real democracy for the new century.
Roberto , April 30, 2019 at 08:13
It's kind of like "Planet of The Apes", in the sense that the underlings support the
process as religious fanatics, who are servants of an oligarchy.
Tedder , April 30, 2019 at 15:22
Sam, climate disruption will probably interfere with everything; hopefully, America's
decline will be an intelligent response to actuality. I won't hold my breath.
KiwiAntz , April 29, 2019 at 19:35
America should be booted out of the United Nations & the Organization moved to another
Country, outside of the US? Because this Country doesn't obey International Laws, there's no
point in the US being part of it? Its a pariah, rogue State & must be treated as such
& designated a Terrorist Nation! America is a AIDS virus infecting & poisoning the
World & must be isolated & contained, like any deadly virus? Attempts by the
International community to wean their economies away from the US Dollar system, must be
accelerated & all the other Nations who rely on Iranian Oil, & others, need to stand
together & say with one united voice, we reject your threats, your sanctions & your
War crimes behaviour! This Global Bully called America, who thinks it can threaten every
Nation on Earth with sanctions & threats in order to get its own way, must be stopped?
Trumps geriatric, old white guy, hopeless Presidency & his lunatic appointment's of
Bolton & Pompeo has exposed the true rotten face of US Imperialism, its benevolent face
shown to be a complete lie & farce & thanks to Trump & his cronies, everyone can
now see this Nation for what it really is? It's a criminal, Mafia, gangster Nation shaking
down other Nations for oil & loot? Lashing around like a drunken buffoon on his last
legs, America's last desperate effort to maintain its Hegemonic status is slipping through
its fingers like water, in a increasingly multipolar World lead by Russia, China & every
other Nation that's abandoning the suicidal, Western model of the US in favour of the One
Belt, One Road Initiative & economic model of the future, leaving America behind in its
wake as a has been, decaying Empire in its death throes, living on its past glories!
dfnslblty , April 30, 2019 at 13:12
"America should be booted out of the United Nations & the Organization moved to
another Country, outside of the US? Because this Country doesn't obey International Laws,
there's no point in the US being part of it?"
Excellent idea that points to usa's hypocracy and attendant violence.
JohnP , April 29, 2019 at 19:35
Besides the influence of Pompeo and Bolton upon Trump, there is Kershner and I sense
Trump's desire to gift powerful Zionists who can then promote his business and his ego.
Israel wants the Golan Heights it said, because it is defensive, however that may be true,
there is also gas and oil there, and they are already taking it away from Syria, just as they
deny the Palestinians the energy just off the Gaza shore.
As thick as Trump is, he has an ability to use vulnerable people to his advantage. I just
wish they could or would see that.
JohnP , April 29, 2019 at 19:48
I meant to say at the start that I think it is Israeli influences through his advisors
including Trumps son-in-law that have set the Iranian policy. They are the ones who helped
Hizballah get Israel out southern Lebanon which Israel considers part of Greater Israel.
Twice they have kicked Israel out of Lebanon.
Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:37
Christian Zionists, like Pompeo & Pence, have the political clout. We Americans are
responsible for our own follies, not scapegoats in any other country.
Tedder , April 30, 2019 at 15:24
And Golan has water, worth more than gas and oil
boxerwar , April 29, 2019 at 19:28
NORTH KOREA BEGS, ON BENDED KNEES FOR AMERICAN EASE OF SANCTIONS
SO THAT N. KOREAN PEOPLE CAN HAVE ADEQUATE FOOD SUPPLIES, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, FERTILIZER FOR
FARMS, OPEN COMMERCE WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE WAR SHOOTING WITH KOREA CAME TO AN END DECADES AGO!!!!!!
WHY THE RUCK ARE WE STILL, IN EFFECT, HOLDING THAT NATION OF PEOPLE AS PRISONERS-OF-WAR
FIFTY + FU-KEN YEARS AFTER OUR ABSOLUTELY TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ALL THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE,
ROADS, DAMS, FARMS, HOSPITALS, UTILITIES, LEAVING THEM ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT ON THE SMALL
CHARITY FROM COMPASSIONATE NATIONS.
THAT QUESTION 60 FRIGG'EN YEARS AFTER WE BOMBED THEM INTO HOLY CRAP AND'VE FORBIDDEN OTHER
NATIONS, FOR NOW SIXTY YEARS, FROM DOING ANY SORT OF FREE TRADING ??? !!!
WHO THE G UCK ARE WE???? TO ENSHRINE AND ENFORCE SUCH TERRORISM UPON A PEOPLE WHOM'VE HAD
NOT-A-THING TO DO WITH A WAR FRAUGHT UPON THEM SIXTY FRIGGIN YEARS AGO !!!!!!???????!!!!
ARE YOU (we) SO-CALLED PATRIOTS -- OR FRIGGEN PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONTINUED MASS MURDER OF
CIVILIAN HUMAN BEINGS, STRUGGLING & STARVING UNDER OUR HOSTAGE INTERNATIONAL BULLYING /
BARRIERS, I REPEAT ! AFTER NOW 70 FULL YEARS OF SANCTIONS/EMBARGOES and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
AGAINST INNOCENT CIVILIANS . !!!!!!
dfnslblty , April 30, 2019 at 13:16
boxerwar:
Excellent plea and challenge ~ keep Protesting and Writing!
IRRATIONAL -: adverse, unfavorable, improper, pernicious, noxious, EVIL, and, so on -- in
terms of ruthless,or, imprudent bully-ism.
Such behavior is typical in the life of our unscrupulous, narcisistic Flim-Flam remorseless
fiend, the American POTUS Trump.
WHAT BRUTAL HARMS HAVE BEEN INFLICTED ANYWHERE THIS WORLD BY THE PEOPLE/NATION OF IRAN ? ?
? ?
(as compared to Saudi Arabia and/or Israel ==== Both Our "Allies " whom have NO Compunction
against bombing civilians )
Repeat the words of Secretary of State Condelezza Rice, "WHAT WE SEE NOW ARE THE BIRTH
PANGS OF A NEW MIDDLE EAST."
(other officials stated openly that our intent in fomenting war in the Middle East was/is the
purpose of "OPENING MARKETS.")
don't be fooled by love songs (patriotic) and/or lonely hearts (deceitful men)our
'leaders' are rapaciously greedy, evil persons /
why don't they reveal the un-redacted Mueller Report?! -- Same reasons for JFK report and
Saudi's allowed to fly after 9/11.
Perhaps you need to take a little time to explain what you were trying to say?
Boxerwar , April 30, 2019 at 15:17
"Such behavior is typical in the life of our unscrupulous, narcisistic Flim-Flam
remorseless fiend, the American POTUS Trump"
JOHN CHUCKMAN -- "Perhaps you need to take a little time to explain what you were trying
to say?
++++ "The US Moves on Iran's Oil Market as an Expression of an Irrational Foreign Policy"
++++
Mr. Chuckman; Recognize and Rationalise POTUS Trump in his narcissistic mind-set as the
(a) 21st century NERO .
A neurotic / egotistical Fool, CONTROLLING Levers of World Economy,Commerce and Military
POWER.
Mr. Chuckman; add to that the Power and Authority to OWN foreign government
banks/politicians/sovereign Right of Control over THEIR NATIONAL RIGHT TO OWN AND CONTROL
THEIR OWN ECONOMIES !!! ???
Mr. Trump is the face of an International Interloper, and/or is the shocking spearpoint of
the brave-new-world of
Sentient Androids / Robots / Artificial Intelligence / TransHumanism. (wake up
everybody!)
George Gilder warned of this in his 1989 book MICROCOSM
"BEWARE THE SENTIENT ANDROID" says Ian McEwan' book, "Machines Like Me"
Which Have -- NO HUMAN FEELING
No Human Feeling / No Compassion/ No Mercy --
This is Trumpian Nomenclature/ his Conclave'
his Obsequious blindness to the "android-istic
Inhuman-istic selfishness of his Personal Character.
Trump and his ilk would not fit well with the
human characters met in Theodore Sturgeon
likelyMore less in the sermons of Spurgeon.
boxerwar , April 30, 2019 at 15:46
Get it right, Chuckman,
Trump is a man out of place
in this period of time
But a Fool Out of his own
Place and Time w/ Robots
and CRISPER DNA Splicing .
Our next Future POTUS,
Aware of Trans humanism
will be Empowered by
Emerging Science and the
Robotic / Android world
seen by A. Turing & A. Toffler
My second reply, Mr. Chuckman, (my first reply apparently hasn't been approved)
In regard to what I'm 'trying to say' --
The decrepit history of our Brutally Arrogant and Obsequiously Religious belief in The
NATIONAL EXCEPTIONALISM,
that affords us the RIGHT to Construct 'wars' with Enemies-Of-Our-Choice, solely at the call
of Oil Company Executives, or WarPlane execs, or Trade War Expansionists or Bomb Makers or
corporatists like Iraq War Apologist Donald Rumsfeld, who championed and pushed through U S
and international markets, the killer sugar substitute Nutrasweet to millions and millions of
Overweight and/or Diabetic sufferer's. -- -- -- -- -- -- Rumsfeld, who championed The Iraq
War, where MILLIONS of innocent humans were Slaughtered or Displaced by the FALSE ACCUSATION
THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN was the culprit of the 9/11 WTC Event.
Like the Gulf of Tonkin CREATED EVENT and our CIA and DEA cocaine involvement in Central
America that created the DRACONIAN Crack Epidemic of Death and Imprisonment in American
'Inner-Cities' -- that also introduced the exorbitant overflow of firearms inside densely
populated Black & Latino neighborhoods. -- These were Planned Events, with planned
purpose -- AN EVIL PLAN.
God Bless America, right !! ?
What lies ahead is ever encroaching Artificial Intelligence -- Robots, Sentient Androids,
Gene Splicing, Trans Humanism, DNA Networks, " A Crack In Creation" -- CRISPER and the
ability to change the genetic makeup of humans -- -- Non-Human Minds interacting with IDIOT
NUMB-SCULLS like POTUS Trump !
Perhaps you need to take a little time to explain what you were trying to say?
CHUCKMAN; In Morse Code it would be -- -- --
Tedder , April 30, 2019 at 15:27
When the Crazies state somehow that Iran is the greatest purveyor of terrorism in the
world, I cringe. I follow the news, and I have not noticed one incidence of Iranian terrorism
in many years -- perhaps the Embassy Takeover after the Revolution, but that can be excused
as a defense against the CIA.
"At the same time, Trump's desire to negotiate with adversaries -- Russia, Iran, North
Korea -- is entirely defensible. But the "down to zero" Iran policy to take effect this week
can be read as a signal of the president's failure to counter the foreign policy Manicheans
who surround him."
Not sure if I agree with Lawrence on this point. Trump indeed always wanted to negotiate
with Russia and NK. However , a distinction must be made when it comes to Iran specifically.
Trump has always been a staunch hawk toward Iran, always; he didn't need any cajoling from
Bolton or Pompeo Maximus. He's merely continuing his hostility against Iran. (Cue Sheldon
Adelson of course.)
David G , April 30, 2019 at 04:43
Dead right. The same can be said for Venezuela.
I don't know how much credit Trump deserves for his gaseous musings about better relations
with Russia and North Korea, and about disengagement from war in Syria and Afghanistan --
swamped and overturned as they have been by the Beltway consensus -- but whatever you want to
grant him with respect to those countries, there's no public evidence that his brutal
hostility toward Iran and Venezuela required any convincing.
rosemerry , April 30, 2019 at 16:31
The brutal hostility is of course entirely unjustified. His "choice" of advisers just
makes the whole problem worse-it would be difficult to find worse people than Pompass, Bolton
and Abrams.
earthling1 , May 1, 2019 at 13:18
The plan is to regime change Venezuela and steal their oil. Blockade Iran from selling
their oil and use Venezuelas oil to maintain low gas prices. Regime change Iran and move
missiles to Russias southern flank.
Blow up Russian pipelines/blockade export of Russian oil. Regime change Russia and
complete "containment" of China's northern flank. Regime change China.
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
Villains of the day: Random Guy, Pompeo, and nefarious band of willie, barovsky etc.
Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most
clownish top diplomat of a major state? He can do better! But once the tall tale was said, it
was duly echoed in supine media. NYT made a paragraph, and actually noted how Pompeo
explained his alleged knowledge of Maduro preparing for departure: >>Pressed about the
source of this information, Mr. Pompeo said it was drawn from "open-source material," and
conversations with "scores and scores of people on the ground," including members of the
military and opposition leaders. "He was headed for Havana," he said of Mr. Maduro.<<
The Guardian made a separate article on the topic, with no notes of caution, damn the
torpedoes, copy with full speed!
So "people on the ground" could have reliable, ha ha, info on the conversations between
Maduro and "Russians". "Scores of people" were interviewed, hm., seems that the wily Maduro
eschew a usual step of information blockade, letting the little golpistas -- and him -- look
silly. I actually do not believe in those "scores of interviews", Most generously, there were
that many conversations from which his people could "draw" a rumor prepared ahead of time,
probably by his own Department.
Finally, the nefarious long linkers. Is it really THAT hard to learn how to make neat
links this
one ? Join lines and remove all spaces from the text below
The Following text is Section 6 of The 70 Years of NATO: From War to War,
by the Italian Committee No War No NATO
*
Documentation presented at the International Conference on the 70th Anniversary of NATO,
Florence, April 7, 2019
In the course of the next two weeks, Global Research will publish the 16 sections of this
important document, which will also be available as an E-book.
*
Contents
1. NATO is born from the Bomb
2. In the post-Cold War, NATO is renewed
3. NATO demolishes the Yugoslav state
4. NATO expands eastward to Russia
5. US and NATO attack Afghanistan and Iraq
6. NATO demolishes the Libyan state
7. The US/NATO war to demolish Syria
8. Israel and the Emirates in NATO
9. The US/NATO orchestration of the coup in Ukraine
10. US/NATO escalation in Europe
11. Italy, the aircraft carrier on the war front
12. US and NATO reject the UN treaty and deploy new nuclear weapons in Europe
13. US and NATO sink the INF Treaty
14. The Western American Empire plays the war card
15. The US/NATO planetary war system
16. Exiting the war system of NATO
***
1. Multiple factors make Libya important in the eyes of the United States and the European
powers. It has the largest oil reserves in Africa, precious for its high quality and low cost
of extraction, and large reserves of natural gas. On these, the Libyan state maintains strong
control, leaving limited profit margins to US and European companies. In addition to black
gold, Libya has white gold: the immense reserve of fossil water from the Nubian aquifer, which
extends under Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Chad. Relevant are the sovereign funds, the capital that
the Libyan state has invested abroad, in particular to provide Africa with its own financial
bodies and its own currency.
2. On the eve of the 2011 war, the United States and the European powers "froze", or seized,
the Libyan sovereign funds, delivering a mortal blow to the entire project. The emails of
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State of the Obama administration in 2011), which came to light
later, confirmed the real purpose of the war: to block Gaddafi's plan to use Libyan sovereign
funds to create autonomous financial bodies of the African Union and an African currency as an
alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc (the currency that 14 African countries, ex-French
colonies are forced to use). It was Clinton – the New York Times would later document
– who had President Obama sign "a document authorizing a covert operation in Libya and
the supply of weapons to the rebels".
3. Tribal sectors hostile to the government of Tripoli and Islamic groups that had until a
few months before been defined as terrorists were financed and armed. At the same time special
forces infiltrated Libya, including thousands of easily disguised Qatari commandos. The entire
operation was led by the United States, first through the African Command, then through NATO
under US command.
4. On 19 March 2011, Libya's air-sea bombing began. In seven months, US/NATO air forces
carried out 30,000 missions, of which 10,000 were attacks involving the use of over 40,000
bombs and missiles. Italy participated in this war using its military bases and forces and
tearing up the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between the two countries. For
the war on Libya, Italy made seven air bases (Trapani, Gioia del Colle, Sigonella, Decimomannu,
Aviano, Amendola and Pantelleria) available to the US/NATO forces, providing technical
assistance and supplies. The Italian Air Force participated in the war by carrying out over a
thousand missions, and the Italian Navy engaged on several fronts.
5. With the US/NATO war of 2011, the Libyan state was demolished and Gaddafi himself
assassinated. That State was demolished which, on the southern shore of the Mediterranean
facing Italy, maintained "high levels of economic growth" (as the World Bank itself documented
in 2010), recording "high indicators of human development" including universal access to
primary and secondary education with 46% of the population at university level. Despite the
disparities, the standard of living of the Libyan population was considerably higher than that
of other African countries. This was evidenced by the fact that over two million immigrants,
mostly Africans, found work in Libya.
6. Sub-Saharan African immigrants were also affected by the war, who, persecuted on charges
of collaborating with Gaddafi, were imprisoned or forced to flee. Many, driven by desperation,
attempted the crossing of the Mediterranean towards Europe. Those who lost their lives were
also victims of the war in which NATO demolished the Libyan state.
*
Sections 7-16 of the 70 Years of NATO, From War to War, forthcoming on Global Research
This text was translated from the Italian document which was distributed to participants at
the April 7 Conference. It does not include sources and references.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"... Promotion of myths about rich natural resources in the territory, where the ethnic group lives ..."
"... In large, this situation has become possible due to a de-facto inaction of or even unofficial ideological protection from authorities. If one takes a detailed look at the Russian elite, he will find that a significant part of it consists of westernized adherers to "liberal democratic order" while another consists of representatives of national family clans. ..."
"... Many of these persons do not associate themselves with the ordinary population and consider the territory of Russia only as a source to increase their personal wealth. ..."
Bugajski's ideas are not new at all. Globalist think tanks have been advancing the same for
decades.
Mud-slinging in order to undermine Russian statehood aims at fueling radicalism, nationalism
and regionalism. It has the wave-like behavior. The previous wave top targeted pretty much the
same regions: the North Caucasus, Middle Volga, Siberia and the Far East. Tricks and methods
employed are not divers. The only difference between them is geographical location and names of
the influenced ethnic groups.
These approaches could be provisionally marked as the "Polish style". This term has no links
to modern Poland. We employ it only because the approaches provided below, except for the first
point, Poland really has a great written history, are quite similar to the ones that were first
used to fuel Polish nationalism in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and
applied to the same geopolitical area.
The main ideas of this model are:
Creation of a pseudo-history of a nation or ethnic
group. Usually this pseudo-history is dated back to the ancient world and legendary times. This
"history" is based on pseudo-historical works and research papers composed by authors unknown
to the world academic community. Promotion of ideas of exceptionalism among members of the
nation or ethnic group. These ideas argue that the nation or ethnic group is superior to
neighbors and instigate a grotesque sense of national identity (exceptionalism based on
ethnicity). Creation of the myth of a historical archenemy, who has been oppressing the nation
or ethnic group, often attempting to eliminate its "exceptional" culture. This historical
archenemy is described as the reason for the group's undoing and thus its poor state in the
modern world. The historical archenemy can be constructed from various states existing in
different periods of history but, through which a historical succession or links can be traced.
For example, the Golden Horde, the Moscow state, the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian
Federation. The myth is actively fueled by speculation regarding historical events, which can
neither be confirmed nor denied using factual data. Creation and promotion of the idea of the
nation as once great but now defective, where this position of greatness had been stolen from
it. Instigation of religious or intra-religious tensions, if the nation or ethnic group has a
similar religion to that of its neighbors. The main approaches employed are:
Promotion and
creation of religious cults, including heathen customs, which are allegedly linked to the
"ancient history" of the nation or ethnic group;
Promotion of discords or sectarianism within
the main religion of the nation. For example, for Orthodox Christianity: the Old Believers or Schismatical cults; for Islam: Sunni sects or Shia branches;
Instigation of religions tensions
between the religion of the ethnic group and other religions of the state. For example:
Islam/Christianity or Orthodox Christianity/Catholicism.
Promotion of myths about rich natural
resources in the territory, where the ethnic group lives. Therefore, if this ethnic group were
to rule this area "independently", its wealth would grow and grow. A part of this effort is
propaganda against government actions concerning the use of natural resources from the
territory, where this ethnic group lives. The negative impact on the ecological situation is nightmarized by dissemination of myths about the barbaric exploitation of nature. A vivid
example is the disseminated information about the alleged irreparable damage to Lake Baikal
that is harmed by the plant producing bottled mineral water.
Instigation of territorial and
intraregional economic disputes between the neighboring nations or ethnic groups.
Discredit of
everything linked with the dominating state culture, language and history. For example, bashing
everything "Russian", the creation and promotion of offensive language and terms (Russian
– Vatnik), a wide spread of derogatory language and the mutilation of words, terms and
names.
The previous wave of information onslaught on nations and ethnic groups of Russia was aimed
at the following targets:
The Northern Caucasus. The influence was mostly aimed at the Kabardians living in the
Kabardino-Balkar Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Stavropol Krai and the Republic of
Adygea. The Ossetians in the Republic of North Ossetia – Alania were also targeted.
Recently the Ingushs living in the Republic of Ingushetia, Moscow and St. Petersburg were again
considered as a priority goal in "the Northern Caucasus target list".
The Southern Federal District. The main effort was to instigate nationalism, regionalism and
separatism among the Cossacks, mostly in Rostov Oblast. The Cossacks are not an ethnic group.
However, they are a large social group, which makes them a likely target.
The Northwestern Federal District. The goal was to instigate regional nationalism among
Finno-Ugric ethnic groups. Another point of pressure was to create nationalism tendencies among
ethnic Russian population in the Republic of Karelia and Arkhangelsk Oblast in order to form a
new large ethnosocial group. For example, in April, the city of Arkhangelsk experienced a
series of rallies held in breach of law. This situation happened under the passive eye of
regional authorities. Furthermore, initial reactions and attitude of the regional authorities
played a notable role in fueling the protest moods. These protests, caused by a project of
landfill site in the nearby area, is being actively exploited by the so-called non-system
opposition and "liberal media" to fuel tensions between the different groups of local
population as well as the regional government.
Separate efforts were contributed to influence the population of Saint Petersburg, which in
terms of culture is one of the most westernized city of Russia alongside with Kaliningrad.
There was also an attempt to instigate local separatism using the concept of Ingermanland.
The Volga region. Ethnic nationalism and religious radicalism were instigated among the Kalmyks, Bashkirs and Tatars. Small ethnic groups and nations, often described as Russians: the
Mokshas and Erzyas also became the target of foreign influence. Among small ethnic groups and
nations, local nationalism can take ugly forms.
Western Siberia. The goal was to create a separate ethnic-social group describing itself as
the citizens of Siberia and separating itself from the rest of Russian citizens. The main
targets were the Altai Republic, Novosibirsk Oblast and the city of Novosibirsk (the capital of
the Siberian Federal District). The foreign influence achieved notable successes in these
areas.
Eastern Siberia. The campaign in this region was aimed mostly at Buryats and Tuvans. Yakuts
were also a target.
The Far East. Local regionalism and separatism were actively fueled in Khabarovsk Krai and
Primorsky Krai, especially in the cities of Khabarovsk and Vladivostok. Besides this, the
foreign influence is actively exploiting simultaneously both pro-Chinese intentions and the
myth of the Chinese threat.
It should be noted that the article "Managing Russia's dissolution" published by The
Hill points to the same regions for further operations designed to dismantle Russia. These
operations will be more dangerous than the previous ones because they will exploit the
successes already achieved in some fields. For example:
the nationalism and religion issues
in the North Caucasus; the nationalism of ethnic groups in the Volga region – Bashkirs,
Tatars, Erzyas, Moshkas; the nationalism and regionalism of Buryats in eastern Siberia. the
creation of a new separate pro-western identity by a good part of the people living in the
cities of Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad, that distance itself from the rest of Russia; the
creation of a separate ethnic-social identity in Western Siberia:
The regions have been targeted by multiple campaigns undermining and discrediting nationwide
traditions and behaviors, for example the New Year traditional family holidays, social events
of Soviet or Old Russian origin as well as common history of Russia. Individualism, neoliberal
attitudes and values are successfully promoted in Saint Petersburg, Kaliningrad and Western
Siberia. Education is simplified and westernized. Meanwhile stakeholders describe these
tendencies as ugly and hostile examples to residents of the North Caucasus, southern Russia and
other regions, promoted ultra-hardline or far right ideology. Local regionalism and ideology
tensions are being successfully fueled.
In large, this situation has become possible due to a de-facto inaction of or even
unofficial ideological protection from authorities. If one takes a detailed look at the Russian
elite, he will find that a significant part of it consists of westernized adherers to "liberal
democratic order" while another consists of representatives of national family clans.
Many of
these persons do not associate themselves with the ordinary population and consider the
territory of Russia only as a source to increase their personal wealth.
The term "new
aristocracy", which has recently got spread in Russian media, has initially appeared as a proud
self-designation among Russian elite families emphasizing exceptionality of their members.
Nonetheless, supporters of Bugajski ideas do not consider the aforementioned tendencies as
sufficient for dismantling Russian statehood without additional strivings. While on the
regional level they have achieved some results, the identified nationwide goals have not been
accomplished. The system of Russia has not yet come close to an imbalance, that is, to the
condition where destructive trends are already beginning to grow on their own, without
additional artificial influence.
The negative tendencies so far set in motion could still be
stopped and reversed. In this situation, we may expect a new wave of information onslaught
toward Russia, traditionally backed by Western funds.
This is pure projection.
All the faults and failings and problems listed apply far more to the United Snakes and EU
than to Russia.
There is a remarkable continuity in western aggression towards Russia from Hitler till the
present day.
Carve up Russia into artificial mini states and loot its resources.
Bismarck used to say, Russia is not as strong as it seems. But it's not as weak as it seems
either.
People point to the discrepancy in GDP and military spending. US v. Russia $21 trillion and
$1.6 trillion, and $1,134 billion and $49 billion respectively.
That's true so far as it goes, but money buys 3 x as much in Russia. So that 1.6 figure is
more like 4 plus, or around the size of the German economy.
Then there is the artificial dollar yardstick. The US organized a speculative attack on the
rouble, driving it down from 30 to 80 to the dollar. So in dollar terms, the economy was
reduced to less than half its previous size. But they were producing just as many cars and
just as much oil and wheat as before. Exports were cheaper. The rouble was allowed to float
back to around 55. Gold and foreign currency reserves were not wasted defending it, as
Washington wanted. There was a great boost in domestic production. America can bankrupt
itself with its endless wars and bloated inefficient war machine if it wants.
And if you look at the US economy, 40% is unproductive, rent seeking finance, Wall Street
spivs pushing around worthless derivatives toilet paper and pretending it is worth trillions.
Or the bloated rent seeking of the drug and insurance companies, 17% of the economy, charging
$5,000 per hospital journey and $750 for a pill that costs a few cents to produce. So much
else is accounted for by the military boondoggles.
When you take that into account, the figures are more like 8 trillion v. 4 trillion.
So much US wealth is eaten up by the gargantuan level of graft and corruption.
It is the US and EU that are at far greater risk of collapse – maybe a lot sooner than
anyone realises.
Anti Russian policies really took off in the 1780's when Catherine the Great was moving South
(including taking Crimea). The British saw Russia as a threat to its business empire in India
and possibly replacing parts of the Ottoman Empire if that was to finally crumble. The icing
on the cake for the Russophobes came with Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. Russian soldiers
bedded down on Parisian streets in 1814 got the paranoid juices flowing, from that time on
the narrative has been that Russia is expanding aggressively and intends to dominate Europe
while destroying European colonies in Asia.
The Revolution just increased Western paranoia;
Russia was no longer just Russia but a Communist State and one immensely stronger with the
formation of the USSR. When the Union collapsed and Russia was suddenly so much smaller and
less powerful it was no surprise that plans developed to finally divide it up while hostility
continues unabated.
It's almost as if the West needs the threat but not the war. In 250 years
Britain has only once attacked Russia head on, during the French, Turkish, British attempt to
seize Crimea in the 1850's. Although Sevastopol was destroyed the Allied forces had to
withdraw.
Usually Britain has fought with Russia, against Napoleon and then the Germans in both World Wars.
In global terms , Russia is particularly stable but, for reasons best known to itself –
is risking global contagion due to its own neoliberal ideology (see below: reply to TTIC).
Other than that, it is the whole integrated system that is susceptibly fragile to contagion.
Russia and America are separated only by discourse – as revealed by capital flows.
And
the epicentre of debt inertia could just as easily be the East – centred on China. For
the precise reason that China built its way out of GFC 1.0. It won't build its way out of GFC
2.0 – which is likely to be many times the magnitude of the first one due to the debt
hangover. We will discover what moral hazard and contagion really mean this time. And there
will be no easy restart – negative interest rates and massive credit stimulus to
reinflate the "mother of all bubbles'?
There are so many contradictions and fragilities, that predicting the where and when is a
mugs game. But neither will there be any morality or false karmic retribution to it. The
deliberately impoverished poor, sucked dry of their life essence by BOTH America and Russia
(and Britain and China – see below) will suffer the most. The best thing humanity could
do is reject as ecologically and evolutionarily redundant the entire hierarchical tributary
system of globalised debt and death.
Entropically and ecologically, we can't afford it any
more. But, psychologically, we probably won't. Some people seem to like it too much. They are
not all American or European though. Even in their home countries – humanity has been
left behind.
The M$M lies: everyone knows its main purpose is para-state political propaganda – the
integrated Fourth Estate. But it does not lie without purpose – there is the
Herman/Chomsky model of controlling consent and consensus in the debatable public forum of
acceptable discourse the Overton Window that focuses on the liberal democratic 'extreme
centre'. It creates the spectacle of electoral politics – including Brexit and its
transatlantic equivalent 'Obstructiongate'. This political 'bread and circuses' spectacle is
extended into the fantasy imaginal of East/West geopolitcs. So is there intracapitalist
inter-relational tensions and contradictions between East and West? Of course, ones that
might get us all killed if they develop. But it also obscures what is happening beneath the
radar – within and without the trained and political propaganda focused microscope
– which is an International World Capitalism that is killing us all softly while our
gaze is averted and focused on simulated and superficial spectacle elsewhere.
After the other day, I thought I better wind my neck in and do some actual research into
international loans and FDI. There is plenty, if anyone wants to substantiate what I have
said – there is no East and West to International World Capitalism (IWC). This should
be obvious, but it isn't because the focus is on the ripples – sometimes large –
on the surface of the pond. IWC works below the surface as integrated flows and counter-flows
– round-tripping for treaty, tax, and money-laudering of illicit flows purposes. All of
this is deregulated – and occurs 'elsewhere' beneath the public radar, and beneath the
created spectacle that is deliberately narratively constructed to conceal it.
Nick Shaxson is a prime source, and one of the few journalists that cover the 'spiders
web'. A web that is still centred on the City of London Corporation – that controls 25%
of world trade. The other main centres are NY and Switzerland (Zurich – the BIS is
'elsewhere' to). Analysis of actual capital flows is not easy – deliberately so, as it
is deliberately made to conceal the capital origination and through a series of accounting
measures – make it look as it originated 'elsewhere'. But what analysis is available
consolidates Wallerstein's World Systems Theory of a core, semi-periphery, and deliberately
pauperised periphery.
Like it or not, (and downvotes won't change anything), it also shows that the 'network
core' is the aforementioned ZUSUK ('Z' for Zurich) extended alliance of 'Pax Americana' and
the City's post-colonial 'British Empire' – supported by a sub-imperial semi-periphery
of the 'Eastern Block' and 'Greater China' as this paper shows.
So my unpopular proposal is that IWC is a parasitical hierarchical tributary system based
on interest bearing debt, and Compounded Annual Rates of Growth (CAGR) that are are drawing
the entire world into a deflationary death spiral. ZUSUK is the imperialist network core:
with Russia/China as the sub-imperial, semi-periphery – drawing on the rest of the
world. One that costs the poorest countries $1.2tn pa (in 2008). It is not a dynamic that
anyone can do anything about, particularly when it is deliberately kept as a stealth dynamic
– below the public radar. You can thank the media for that. But then, that's their job.
Our job is to expose the lies and the underlying dynamics of death. It is globalised and
integrated – and arranged hierarchically – not hemispherically. There is no East
and West to capitalism not beneath the surface.
As Wallerstein has said: to understand World Systems – you have to forget what we
have been inculcated with about the nation-state. We do not live in that regulated space
anymore. The real world was deregulated for capital decades ago – though the neoliberal
restructuring is ongoing. As soon as humanity realises that the teleology for capital
accumulation is not an Ecological Civilisation – but deregulated Global Governance it
may be able to consolidate the considerable anti-globalisation pushback growing in every
country. Maybe, if and when we stop pretending the East has a capitalised Eco-Shangri-La
rising. That, I'm afraid is capitalist propaganda.
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
"... The fish rots from the head; or so it's said. That does however, exactly describe the rolling disaster, earstwhile known as U.S. foreign policy; there isn't any! Just guns, more guns, bigger guns; but it's not working... ..."
"... Bolten, Pompeo, and Pense are in panic mode. Generally not known to produce clear, logical thinking. But their ideological positions also corrupt their cognitive skills(?)/conclusions. Buckle up; its going to be one hell of a ride... ..."
The RAND Corporation think-tank report is of a piece with Janusz
Bugajski's flight into fancy with his January 2019 article for The Hill, "Managing Russia's
Dissolution" , which portrays Russia as a failing nation with a repressive authoritarian
government, a predatory political elite that steals energy and mineral resources from
colonial territories in Siberia and the Far East regions, decaying infrastructure and falling
standards of living. At least Bugajski's article lays out a strategy for the US to infiltrate
Russia and hasten its break-up which, surprise of all surprises, turns out to be a
regime-change strategy it has pursued in Syria and other parts of the world, past and
present. It is the same kind of regime-change strategy the US chased in Russia when Boris
Yeltsin first became Russian President in the early 1990s, and all of a sudden conflicts
around the country's border regions (especially in Chechnya and Dagestan) began to spring
up.
That such pieces as Bugajski's article and the RAND Corporation report have appeared about
the same time is in itself a suggestion that the US Deep State truly exists on another plane
of unreality. I wouldn't be surprised if a third hit-piece advocating regime change in Russia
were to come out soon, either in the US or in the UK, but if that happens then we'll know
we're really on a path to self-destruction.
RAND produced a paper because it was contracted to produce a paper. There wasn't any demand
that the paper be useful; rather, all that was wanted was the product--then paper. Now RAND
can work on the next paper it's contracted to produce. I heard this next one does come with a
requirement that its pages have perforations for easy tearing, absorbency, and be
biodegradable.
Wait, this idiot isn't considering Siberia seceding from Russia? If that's the case, it's not
just they live in their own reality, it's also that they're terminally stupid and completely
ignorant of basic facts. From the Urals to Bering Straits, the bulk of the population is
Russian, there's just no local ethnicity that can hope to go into guerrilla mode and secede.
And since there's actually a continuum of Russian population going from Vladivostok to St.
Petersburg, there's no sense of being a far away colony, like the US could have in 1770; it
would be as if Florida felt to be a colony from Washington DC.
And the Russians I've met who
came from Siberia felt very much Russian, belonging to Mother Russia, and didn't feel Moscow
or Peter were a world of alien oppressive occupiers, they knew it was their country and their
culture - with the classical shift between those who prefer and feel more alike to Moscow or
to St. Petersburg (as most Russians, most Siberians I met feel akin to Moscow).
They should stick with the old plan of carving up the Caucasus, it's pretty much the only
place where that can work and where secession can gain traction. It's a border region after
all. The other major ethnies, Mordvins, Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash would all be enclaves
inside Russia.
Well, there's always Tuva, but that wouldn't mean much as long as Russia has
good relations with Mongolia, that's a small quite irrelevant area, and Defense Minister
Shoygu is half-Tuvan so there's barely any way for a significant independance movement there
for probably decades.
Trump will be fuming when he hears what the Big Girls and the Naughty Little Girls at RAND
are day-dreaming about now. Like any sane observer of the effects AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy,
he knows Russia is just one of The Swamp's many imaginary "enemies of convenience."
He also
knows that The Swamp, and its Global Judeo-Christian partners in crime and corruption, are
the root cause of most of the military strife AND ter'rist insanity in the world.
In some ways this tosh can be seen as an extension of Richard Perle's Oafus Mawkish - A
Clean Break - A Strategy For Securing The Realm.
The fish rots from the head; or so it's said.
That does however, exactly describe the rolling disaster, earstwhile known as U.S. foreign
policy; there isn't any!
Just guns, more guns, bigger guns; but it's not working...
Bolten, Pompeo, and Pense are in panic mode. Generally not known to produce clear, logical
thinking.
But their ideological positions also corrupt their cognitive skills(?)/conclusions.
Buckle up; its going to be one hell of a ride...
That such pieces as Bugajski's article and the RAND Corporation report have appeared about
the same time is in itself a suggestion that the US Deep State truly exists on another plane
of unreality. I wouldn't be surprised if a third hit-piece advocating regime change in Russia
were to come out soon, either in the US or in the UK, but if that happens then we'll know
we're really on a path to self-destruction.
@Jen | Apr 27, 2019 5:38:18 PM | 19
It's easy to be mesmerised into focusing on Fink Tank drivel instead of the stuff
happening outside the stale atmosphere of their unventilated tanks. The French peasants seem
to have woken up to the fact that the Macron NeoLib govt has betrayed them and is only
pretending to listen. It's only a matter of time until the Gillet Jaunes remember the words
of jocular Neoliberal poster-boy Grover Norquist about "government small enough to drown in
the bathtub."
Of course, when funny-man Grover said that he meant govt too small to responsibly oversee
and administer all of its obligations to The People, thereby necessitating the 'outsourcing'
of the juiciest govt obligations to Private Profiteers. Unfortunately, when a govt becomes
too small and pompous to listen and respond to the legitimate concerns of The People, it runs
the risk of having its size compared with the size of the Disenchanted demographic and,
eventually, drowned. Hopefully metaphorically, although History says that when the French
neglect reform for too long, metaphorical solutions tend to be neglected too.
"Carnage needs to destroyed" mentality is dominant among the USA neoliberal elite and drives the policy toward Russia.
They all supported neoconservative extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda directed on weakening Russian and
establishing of world dominance. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya. ..."
"... And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''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
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
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.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
I know something of spectroscopy. The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation. The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those? The German link is different. How about the Iranian? or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
"... For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork??? ..."
"... I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy ..."
"... To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't be president. ..."
"... Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field (medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that catch the errors. ..."
"... Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors. ..."
"... "Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands." ..."
"... Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government in the world on their side. ..."
"... It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many times! ..."
"... The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way? Not possible. ..."
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of historic dimensions. The "weapons of mass destruction" excuse was a lie. When I see George
W. Bush smiling on TV, I want to puke. Likewise, I cannot view an image of Lyndon Johnson without revulsion. They are both responsible
for much death and suffering. I have heard people try to excuse both of them, with the statement that "they meant well." The road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional
sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to
need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork???
I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with
more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy.
The war In Afghanistan would have ended 15 years ago if the sons of members of Congress were being drafted. "It's easy to send
someone else's sons to war."
You left out the phrase "anything other than" following the phrase "have served this nation with" in your last sentence.
You forgot to express your confidence in John McCain. Good luck with that. McCain's top aide flew to a foreign city to receive
the Steele dossier, gave it to the senator, who then gave it to the FBI–as per Steele's script, I assume. It's another reason
why we need a special counsel to look into the FBI's role. A special counsel can hardly omit the McCain piece of the puzzle, whereas
a regular prosecutor can easily ignore it and cover McCain's keister.
To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able
to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't
be president.
More than anything else concerning the FBI's election shenanigans, the McCain-Steele nexus–specifically the report written
about it by a special counsel–could expose the deep state's modus operandi. Not even an inspector general's report can do that
as well as a special counsel's report.
Your book will go out of print. In 10 to 20 years it will be reprinted and sell well. It takes that long for people to remove
their heads from their nether regions and be willing to contemplate the errors made.
The real irony is that we know better. There is a vast body of literature on major cognitive errors, and the whole catalog
is on display in the debacle described. Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field
(medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though
systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you
have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that
catch the errors.
Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional
complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors.
I commiserate with your disillusioning journey because I went through a similar odyssey into self-awareness like yours many decades
ago. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 – 31 May 1968). It's all been downhill from there. A gradual slide
down the slippy slope of history in our decline as a nation. There's not much one can really do. But at my age, I will be long
gone when our country hits burns and crashes as it hits bottom.
"Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world
and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't
matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did
not come home; all died at their own hands."
Enough books and movies about those poor damaged American boys yet?
The navel gazing never stops.
Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions
of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government
in the world on their side.
Get over yourselves! Honestly! It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many
times!
The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did
you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way?
Not possible.
Just a cynical take, but implying that there are lessons to be learned from previous or present wars that should keep us from
engaging in future wars presumes that the goal is to, where possible, actually avoid war.
It also suggests a convenient, simplistic narrative that the military/DOD is incompetent and stupid, and unable to learn from
previous engagements.
I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military; if it seems as though there is no
plan, no objective, no victory for these engagements, maybe that is because the only objectives and victory are to provide practical
war training for our troops, test equipment and tactics, keep defense contractors employed and the Pentagon's budget inflated,
and to project power and provide a convenient excuse for proximity to our 'real' enemies.
Draping these actions under a pretense of spreading 'peace and democracy' is just a pretense and, as we can see by our track
record, has nothing to do with actual victory. "Victory", depending on who you ask, is measured in years of engagement and dollars
spent, period.
And because it is primarily taking place in the far away and poorly understood Middle East, it is never going to be enough
of an issue with voters for politicians to have to seriously contend with.
This person is a crybaby. At 49 he went to a war that most rational people knew already, was an immoral, illegal waste of people,
time and money. But now he wants to whine about PTSD. I have the same opinion about most soldiers who fought there also. Nobody
made them volunteer for that junk war so quit whining when things get a little hard
The dream of dismantling Russia is still very much alive in Washington neocon think tanks and intelligence agencies
Notable quotes:
"... This sort of drivel is nothing new, dissolution of Russia has been a long-standing intent of the US, NATO and their boot licking lackeys like the Polish government and the coup government in Kiev. Putin and fellow politicians have said precisely this on several occasions. ..."
"... "Russians paying big money to have their babies born in US" https://www.foxnews.com/us/... I don't see any Americans traveling to Russia to have their babies born there ..."
"... Isn't it amazing how so many Russians have "Faith" in the future of the United Sates and NONE in their own country of Russia that they'd flock to the US so their children can have a U.S. passport. ..."
"... Lots of people want to go USA for better life and that is a simple human desire as USA can provide at least basic living standards to majority, but the question is how they can do that... ..."
"... Answer; They print dollars, they go around and kill people and pillage countries of their human and material capital, install governments in other countries that work against their own people for the benefit of USA etc... ..."
This sort of drivel is nothing new, dissolution of Russia has been a long-standing intent of
the US, NATO and their boot licking lackeys like the Polish government and the coup
government in Kiev. Putin and fellow politicians have said precisely this on several
occasions.
Thanks for the confirmation of the articles truth IVAN.
I hear Russian woman will pay big money to travel to the the U.S. so they can have their
babies born here. Anchor babies with U.S. citizenship as 'Insurance' against the next
inevitable Russian political/economic collapse.
"Russians paying big money to have their babies born in US"
https://www.foxnews.com/us/... I don't see any Americans traveling to Russia to have their babies born there, doublely so
these days with the Russian FSB looking for Americans in Russia to take as hostages.
Isn't it amazing how so many Russians have "Faith" in the future of the United Sates and
NONE in their own country of Russia that they'd flock to the US so their children can have a
U.S. passport.
Lots of people want to go USA for better life and that is a simple human desire as USA can
provide at least basic living standards to majority, but the question is how they can do
that...
Answer; They print dollars, they go around and kill people and pillage countries of
their human and material capital, install governments in other countries that work against
their own people for the benefit of USA etc...
Money quote: "Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots
that the West is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets
should be built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion.
But the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union. "
Notable quotes:
"... Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative. The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international organizations. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act, in my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally. ..."
"... There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent investigator or judge. ..."
In 2016, Andrei Lvovich Nekrasov, a well-known Russian film-maker, playwright, theater director, and actor, released a docudrama
entitled, The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes . Although the film won many artistic accolades, including a special commendation
from the Prix Europa Award for a Television Documentary, public screenings were abruptly canceled in both Europe and the United States.
Political pressure from various constituents and the threat of lawsuits from William Browder, the American-British billionaire and
human-rights activist, ensured the limitation of the film to a single website. To the knowledge of this author, there has been only
one public screening of The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes in the United States. In June 2016, Seymour Hersch, a renowned investigative
journalist, presided over a showing of the film at the Newseum in Washington, DC, that generated much controversy. The American press
has not been kind to either the film or the director, Andrei Nekrasov. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker,
and The Daily Beast all seem to agree that the film is an overt work of Russian propaganda that aims to introduce confusion
about the circumstances leading to the death of tax accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, in the minds of the viewers. The Putin administration,
which has been the prime target of both the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Accountability Act and the 2016 Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, has good reason to promote a film that questions the circumstances surrounding Magnitsky's untimely death
in Moscow's Butyrka Prison in 2009.
Despite a flood of persuasive articles and editorials by well-known journalists suggesting that this inconvenient film deserves
no more than a quick burial, I was drawn to reconsider both the film and the political controversy that it continues to create for
two main reasons. First, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and our own recent presidential campaigns show, we can never entirely
prohibit the intrusion of propaganda or politically slanted content into the public sphere. Instead, as a historian and faculty member
who serves at a public university, I believe that it is my job to teach our students how to diagnose an issue, and how to consider
the many sides that a story necessarily involves. As an intellectual process this has immense value both in and of itself. Source
criticism is a time tested and reliable means through which we can make sense of an event or a phenomenon. Our students need to learn
both the mechanics and the intellectual value of analyzing a source and should be able to evaluate the nature of political content
whether it is embedded in a Facebook post, a scholarly article, or a documentary.
The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes can serve as an important vehicle to introduce the contested nature of historical
truth, and as a prism, it allows us to view the multiple modes through which various versions of the truth are disseminated in the
twenty-first century. Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a
real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating
analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative.
The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's
death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary.
Second, I am concerned by the fact that both critics and supporters have turned the debate about the film into a referendum on
William Browder, his business dealings as well as his global human rights activism, and the Putin administration. In this interview
with Andrei Nekrasov, I turn the spotlight back on the film-maker, his motivations for making the film, and on his political experiences
since the release of the film. It is important to remember that in the past Nekrasov has made several politically charged films including
Disbelief (2004), and Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File (2007) -- films that are extremely critical of the
Putin administration. Nekrasov, a student of philosophy and literature, is in the unique position of having experienced censorship
in the Soviet Union, Putin's Russia, and in the democratic countries of Western Europe and the United States.
1) Why did you want to make a film about the Magnitsky Act? What drew you to this project?
Andrei Nekrasov : I felt that the story of Magnitsky, in its accepted version, was very powerful and important. I thought that
Sergei Magnitsky was a hero, and I wanted to tell the story of the modern hero, my compatriot. His case seemed very special because
Magnitsky, a tax lawyer (in reality, an accountant) had come from the world of capitalism, to symbolize all that is good and moral
in modern Russia. I believed that Magnitsky did not surrender under torture and sacrificed his life fighting corruption.
2) Who has funded the making of this film and what motivated them to invest in this production?
AN : The film was produced by Piraya Film, a Norwegian company. There is a long list of funders, and none are from Russia. (Please
visit www.magnitskyact.com for further information). And they are all
very "mainstream." I believe in the United States and Russia it is easier to construe the specific reasons that motivate funders,
who are mostly private, to support a project. In Europe, where more public money is available for the arts, the state is more or
less obliged to fund the cultural process. So I submit an idea to a producer, and if they like it, they introduce it into a complex
system of funding that is supposed to be politically neutral. Only quality matters, in theory. In practice "quality" has political
aspects, and its interpretation is open to prejudices.
But it would be a simplification to say the film was funded because I had set out to tell Browder's version of the Magnitsky case.
Those funders who were (through their commissioning editors) monitoring the editing process, ZDF/ARTE, for example, became aware
of the inconsistencies in Browder's version and supported my investigation into the truth. What they did not realize was who, and
what, we were all dealing with. They did not realize that Browder was supported by the entire political system of North America and
Western Europe. They realized that only when they were told by politicians to stop the film. And they obeyed, contrary to what I
thought was their principles.
3) How has the role of censorship, both in Russia and the West, affected your artistic career?
AN : Censorship has had a very strong and damaging impact on my career. But while censorship in Russia had never been something
surprising to me, the way that the film T he Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes was treated by western politicians was totally
unanticipated and shocking. Yet, intellectually, the experience was very illuminating. The pro-Western intelligentsia of Russia,
a class to which I have belonged, idolizes the West and believes that the freedom of expression is an essential and even intrinsic
part of Western culture. The notion that the interests of economically powerful groups can set a geopolitical agenda and that easily
overrides democratic freedom of expression is considered to be a remnant of Soviet era thinking. So I had to have a direct and personal
experience of Western censorship to realize that that notion is rooted in reality.
The issue of censorship in Russia is, on the other hand, often misunderstood in the West. There is no direct political censorship
of the kind that existed in the Soviet Union, and that possibly exists in countries like China today. Many popular Russian news outlets
are critical of the government, and of Putin personally as evidenced by the content in media outlets such as Ekho Moskvy, Novaya
Gazeta, Dozhd TV, New Times, Vedomosti, Colta. ru, and others. The internet is full of mockery of Putin, his ministers and of
his party's representatives. There is neither a system nor the kind of wellresourced deep state structures that control the flow
of information. Many Russian media outlets, for example, repeat Browder's story of Magnitsky killed by the corrupt police with the
state covering it up. All that is perfectly "allowed" while Putin angrily condemns Browder as a criminal and Browder calls himself
Putin's number one enemy. In reality, it is not allowed but simply happens because of the lack of consistent political censorship.
However, you will hardly ever hear a proper analysis and criticism in the Russian media of the big corporations, and of the oligarchs
that make up the state. It is also true that such acute crises as military operations, such as Russian-Georgian war of 2008 produce
intolerance to the voices of the opposition. My film Russian Lessons (2008) about the suffering of the Georgians during that
short war and its aftermath wasbanned in Russia. But nationalism is not only a government policy. It's the prevailing mood. The supposedly
democratic leader of the opposition, that the West seems to praise and support, Alexei Navalny, was on the record insulting Georgians
in jingo-nationalistic posts during the war. The film industry is, of course, easier to steer in the "right direction" as films,
unlike articles and essays, are very expensive to produce. But Russia is a complex society, deeply troubled, but also misunderstood
by the West. If my films, such as Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File , and Russian Lessons (2010) were attacked
by pro-government media, then some of my articles were censored by the independent, "opposition" outlets, such as Ekho Moskvy
.
4) Did you actually begin filming the movie with an outcome of supporting Browder's story in mind, as you represent in the
film, or did you plan from the start of the filming process to end the film as it now stands?
AN : I started filming the story. I totally believed in the story that Browder had told me, and all the mainstream media repeated
after him.
5) You know that there are many more "disappeared" journalists and others listed in the formal US Congress Magnitsky Act
who have suffered from the effects of corrupt power in Russia. Why did you not address the fates of some of those others as well
in your film?
AN : I may be misunderstanding this question, but I do not see how addressing the fates of "disappeared" journalists and others'
would be relevant to the topic of my film in its final version. I obviously condemn the "disappearance" of journalists and others.
In Russia journalists disappear usually by being "simply" shot (not in "sophisticated" Saudi ways), and as far as I remember only
one is referred to in The Magnitsky Act , Paul Khlebnikov. He was the editor of Forbes, Russia , and was shot in 2004
when Bill Browder was a great fan of Vladimir Putin and continued to be for some time. I have not seen any evidence or even claim,
that Putin may have been behind that murder. I was a friend of Anna Politkovskaya, perhaps the most famous of all Russian journalists
who was assassinated in the recent past. She is featured in my film, Poisoned by Polonium .
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a
fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally
sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international
organizations.
6) Does William Browder's role in the formulation of the Magnitsky Act invalidate its value and that of the Global
Magnitsky Act, in seeking to provide protection for those suffering from the effects of deadly and corrupt power such as the recently
deceased Saudi Arabian journalist, Jamal Khashoggi?
AN : Let me, for the argument's sake, pose myself what would seem like a version of your question: "Would Browder's role in creating
a weapon that could protect someone like Khashoggi from deadly and corrupt power invalidate that weapon?" My answer would be, no,
it would not invalidate that weapon. However, we are dealing with a fallacy here, in my humble opinion. The Magnitsky Act, in
my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of
Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was
he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never
mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people
named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen
and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights
of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent
investigator or judge.
Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots that the West
is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets should be
built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion. But
the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union.
Choi Chatterjee is a Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles. Chatterjee, along with Steven Marks,
Mary Neuberger, and Steve Sabol, edited The Wider Arc of Revolution in three volumes (Slavica Publishers).
If NATO were a person, it would be five years past retirement age
. In fact,
as Ron Paul notes
, NATO should have retired back in the early 1990s when its reason for
existence - the Warsaw Pact - ceased to exist. Instead, new missions had to be created and new
enemies had to be made to justify the massive behemoth that provides lush jobs for the
well-connected and vast fortunes for the weapons makers.
NATO must die and the sooner the
better
.
When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created 70 years ago in 1949 it was formed as a
blatant military instrument for waging the Cold War, a war that the US, Britain and other European
allies had newly embarked on.
NATO's public relations cant about "peace and security" is
but Orwellian rhetoric.
But,
as The Strategic Culture Foundation notes,
the supposed allies of the Soviet Union
hastily went from an ostensible joint purpose of defeating Nazi Germany during the Second World War
to initiating hostility towards Moscow.
Already in 1946, British war-time leader Winston
Churchill was fulminating about "an Iron Curtain" descending across Europe, in language adapted
from Third Reich propaganda maestro Joseph Goebbels. The ensuing Cold War would last for nearly
half a century until the Soviet Union collapsed from its internal political and economic stresses.
NATO's first secretary general, Britain's Lord Ismay, was candid in the mission of the military
alliance. Its objective, he said, was to,
"Keep Russia out, the Americans in, and
Germany down".
Of course,
Western propaganda always portrayed the Soviet Union as the "aggressor",
alleging that the so-called Red Menace had designs on conquering all of Europe. Not much has
changed when one listens to Western contemporary claims of Russia being an aggressor. As in the
past, present innuendo casting Moscow as a demonic force has a decidedly hollow quality, at least
for those willing to be critical about Western state and media "information".
Lord Ismay, perhaps unwittingly, let the cat out of the bag in his statement all
those years ago.
The purpose of NATO was to serve as a means of dividing and ruling
over Europe for Washington and its always closely aligned, servile British partner.
If countering Soviet aggression was the real purpose of NATO, as officially claimed, then one
must ask why is this organization still in existence – some 30 years after the alleged "evil
communist empire" dissolved?
NATO is a military monster desperately in search of a purpose.
The substitution
of Russia as an enemy in place of the Soviet Union doesn't quite hold the same propaganda cachet,
but nonetheless that is why Moscow continues to be designated the official "enemy" – in order to
justify the existence of NATO. The US-led military bloc needs enemies like a junkie needs a
narcotic fix.
NATO's real function is at least three-fold
.
First, it gives the US an excuse to justify its enormous military presence in Europe.
Instead of appearing as an occupying force, which it is, the Americans claim to be a
protector of allies against malign Russia, or formerly the Soviet Union. This allows Washington
to exert political control over its so-called European allies, and specifically to prevent any
normalized relations with Russia. US vice president Mike Pence this week scolded Germany and
fellow NATO member Turkey for daring to continue relations with Moscow, in the form of the Nord
Stream 2 gas project and Ankara's purchase of Russian S-400 air defense system. Pence inferred
treasonous conduct on the part of Berlin and Ankara just because these two nominally independent
countries have chosen to do business with Russia. Pence was thus demonstrating the classic NATO
purpose of dividing Europe from Moscow.
A second function of NATO is to serve as an extension of the US military-industrial
complex and, in turn, an important buttress for American corporate capitalism, which is totally
dependent on military spending.
When President Donald Trump castigates European allies,
like Germany, for not spending enough on military and NATO, his real concern is for European
nations to buy more American weaponry, such as the vastly over-priced and over-rated F-35
fighter jet. If NATO were to be disbanded – as it should from its obsolete objective purpose –
then US capitalism would suffer a major withdrawal of European subsidy in the form of decreased
weapons purchases.
The irony here is that Trump has previously denigrated NATO as obsolete. In his irascibility,
he is more correct than he seems to realize. But Trump has – despite superficial griping – still
continued to boost NATO for the purpose of hiking European military spending. What Trump means
by "obsolete" is that the past financial tribute from the Europeans to the US militarized
economy must henceforth be significantly increased. The outrageous demands by Trump are inciting
tensions within NATO. At a time of massive civilian social needs across Europe being neglected
due to "fiscal constraints", the American ultimatums for more military spending are bound to be
seen by the wider European populace as an intolerable dictate.
A third function of NATO for its American leadership is that it gives a pseudo legal
cover of "multinationalism" to what would otherwise be seen as blatant US imperialist aggression
all over the globe.
NATO forces have assisted US illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, among other
interventions. This by an organization that self-declares itself a bastion of security and
peace.
It was 20 years ago that US-led forces under the cover of NATO bombed Serbia and its capital
Belgrade. That marked a watershed assault on international law, and the unleashing of US global
violence with impunity.
Washington could not carry out its aggression without the political and legal cover of NATO.
Jens Stoltenberg, the present NATO secretary general, was in Washington this week calling for
more aggression towards Russia. The Norwegian figurehead is a shameless warmonger who is
violating the UN Charter for the sake of feathering his career as an American puppet.
It is all the more disturbing that this week in Washington, foreign ministers of the 30
member states belonging to NATO deferred to the US calls for naval forces to be deployed to the
Black Sea "in defense" of Ukraine and Georgia from "Russian aggression".
These two
countries have done everything possible to provoke Russia. They are cat's paws for their NATO
master, and are reckless enough to instigate a full-on war. Washington and its NATO minions have
the audacity, or intelligence deficit, to call such an explosive situation as "defense" against
Russia.
NATO, or rather the US, is giving itself a green light to mount even more aggression
against Russia than it already has done over the past 30 years.
In that period, NATO
membership has almost doubled with the result that the military bloc is now on Russia's border –
and at the same time claiming with Orwellian double-think that it is defending Europe from Russian
aggression. As Russian wit would have it: Russia has had the temerity to move its border towards
NATO offensive forces.
Global security and peace is too serious for jokes.
The maintenance of
NATO, with its original aggressive objective against Moscow still intact, is a grotesque joke. A
joke sickeningly played on the people of Europe who could benefit greatly from halting the
squandering of billions of dollars each year on military budgets. NATO's gratuitous belligerence
towards Russia – based on trumped-up, ridiculous propaganda – is an obscenity. This organization is
a dinosaur that somehow outlived its Cold War environment because those powers who control it from
Washington and London want it to live on for their own selfish, ideological, economic reasons.
For the sake of world peace, the citizens of North America and Europe should demand that
NATO be liquidated. Thirty years too late.
"... This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else. ..."
"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as
European. That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean,
a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot
toward the 'New Asia.'" Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012
The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles
across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim.
The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political
establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.
Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin "to sow discord and division"
in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington.
That's what Russiagate is really all about.
US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly
confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious "pivot" to Asia plan. This new regional strategy
focuses on "strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence."
In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten
the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region
in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington's plan to rule the world, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Here's how Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically
axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.
. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's
known energy resources." ("The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives", Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, page 31, 1997)
14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and
demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America's military footprint in Asia. It
was Clinton who first coined the term "pivot" in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled "America's Pacific Century". Here's an excerpt
from the speech:
"As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot
point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be
smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will
therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific
region
Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than
half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015,
we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets."
("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century "Great Game" promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy
theorists. It is Washington's premier foreign policy doctrine, a 'rebalancing' theory that focuses on increasing US military and
diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO's ominous troop movements on Russia's western flank and Washington's
provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao
summed it up like this:
"The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military
alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American
government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on
us from the east, south, and west."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington's erratic behavior. NATO's eastward expansion has convinced
Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington's
relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.
Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war
era when the world's industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted
from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and
gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening
rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred
and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.
Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors
in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world's biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia's intervention
in Syria has rolled back Washington's plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That
plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a "great power competition" which
acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America's dominance are emerging
everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.
This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It's a desperate "Hail
Mary" attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.
What does that mean in practical terms?
It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community
(The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces.
Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington's proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts
to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to "create a harmonious community of economies
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." (Putin)
Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia's ability to thwart Washington's
grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.
As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains
how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document's main focus is Russia and China.
Here's an excerpt:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They
are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence." (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity."
They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories,
employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)
Here's more: "Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries
around the world." (This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.')
"Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries
target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data." (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation
bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don't hold a candle to the ginormous MSM 'Wurlitzer' that controls the cable news
stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense
one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:
"Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively
compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners . We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing
a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political
and security institutions, demonstrating Russia's ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin's domestic legitimacy.
We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime's territorial control
in Syria, ·Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas mediate conflicts,
including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation .
Russia will continue pressing Central Asia's leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement
with Washington. Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests
" ("The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community",
USG )
Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that
Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East,
and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault
with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given
Putin's determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here's Putin:
"We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy
complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps
in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines
start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political
whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly
relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy."
The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate.
This is Washington's greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012,
Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as "a move to
re-Sovietize the region." . "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,"
she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe."
"Slow down or prevent it"?
Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national
debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin's economic integration plan?
Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and
thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.
But Russia shouldn't be blamed for Washington's profligate behavior, that's not Putin's fault. Moscow is merely using the free
market system more effectively that the US.
Now consider the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We
are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order -- creating a
security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security."
(Naturally, the "security environment" is going to be more challenging when 'regime change' is the cornerstone of one's foreign
policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here's more:)
"Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions
of its neighbors ..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound
up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here's more:
"China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
"China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system .
Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions
and corporations. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the "rules-based system",
is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That's why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line,
because it's not a fair system.
These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon
and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with
Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At
the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The
greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington's provocative plan for military and economic expansion,
the threat that Russia and China pose to America's tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.
And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed
to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with
the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes
on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations
(PSYOP) is to selectively use information on "audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately
the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals."
The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and
perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the
The emerging Euro-Asian power block is very heterogeneous. Russia, China, and the smaller affiliated players like Central Asia,
Iran, Syria, Turkey don't agree on almost anything. They have different cultures, religions, economies, demographic profiles,
even writing systems. The most rational strategy to prevent the Euro-Asian block from consolidating would be to get them to fight
each other. Alternatively, find the weakest link and attack it in an area where its reluctant allies don't share its interests.
Exactly the opposite has happened in the last 5-10 years: US has seemingly worked overtime to get China-Russia alliance of
the ground. They used to distrust each other, today, after Ukraine, South China See, etc they have become close allies. Same with
Iran and Syria: instead of letting them stew in their own internal problems – mostly religious and having a nepotistic elite –
US has managed to turn the fight into an external geo-political struggle, literally invited Russia to join in, and ended up losing.
Bush turned Iraq from a fanatically anti-Iran bastion to a reliable ally of Iran and started an un-winnable land war in Afghanistan
(incredible!). Obama turned Libya, the richest and most stable African country that threatened no-one and kept African migrants
far away, into a chaotic hellhole where slave trade flourishes and millions of Sub-Saharan Africans can use it to move on to Europe.
Then Obama tried to coup-de-etat Erdogan in Turkey, and – even worse – failed miserably. This gang can't shoot straight
– whatever they put in their position papers is meaningless drivel because they are too stupid to think. They have no patience
to wait for the right time to move, no ability to manage on the ground allies, and an aversion to casualties that makes winning
a war impossible. Today Trump threatens Germany over its energy security (pipelines), further antagonises Turkey and Erdogan,
watches helplessly as EU becomes the next UN (lame and irrelevant), and bets everything on a few small allies like Saudi Arabia
and Izrael that are of almost no use in Euro-Asia.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that ' maybe I had bad information ' is no master of the universe.
And he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or ' information warfare ' – is
a pathetic sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
the russophobia is just drama to keep the MIC spending at $700+ billion per year
there is no way to justify that level of spending and pretend they don't have $25 billion one time to actually help solve the
real problem for the U.S.
"The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes
and perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the battlespace" which they must exploit in order to build public support for their
vastly unpopular wars and interventions. "
Here is a short guide on how to detect subversion of the mind by the media and their handlers by a former military intelligence
officer.
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing
"Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia", "Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an "realist"
and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation
of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki himself
proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American Primacy".
Recognizing this however one can't escape the conclusion that this "Grand Chessboard" with its consistent 'amoral realist imperatives'
is serving up inherently immoral 'imperatives' as inescapable options dressed up in academic language and with absolutely abhorrent
arrogance.
Stating that Brennan's Russophobia is somehow a degeneration of Brzezinki's "Grand Chessboard" is completely overlooking how
difficult it would be to outdo Brzezinki's own total moral degeneration.
One has to recognize that by now the only bipartisan aspect of US policy can be found in sharing these despicable and immoral
'imperatives' to maintain that "American Primacy" at all cost (of course to the rest of the world).
"The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its
tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda,
but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire
Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony."
TRUE!
I would suggest that the initials 'US' in the final sentence be changed to: Anglo-Zionist Empire.
"Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants
in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn
the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging,
and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle
Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end."
Just like the Brit Empire – of which the Yank Empire is merely Part 2, the part where it becomes obvious that it is the Anglo-Zionist
Empire, which, like a band of screeching Pharisees standing on the walls of Jerusalem hurling curses at the Romans they inform
that Jehovah will soon wipe out all Romans to save His Chosen Race, would choose utter destruction for all over any common sense
backing down to prevent mass slaughter.
Nothing harmed US more than Brzezinski's ideology. US did build up far east with their investments, while neglecting their own
backyard. US should have build up rather North and South America and make it the envy of the world. Neglecting particularly South
America now created Desperate south American people, who have no jobs and no future and these people are now invading US.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that 'maybe I had bad information' is no master of the universe. And
he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or 'information warfare' – is a pathetic
sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
Testosterone plus steady, unrelenting decline and corruption of American "elites" most of who have no background in any fields
related to actual effective governance especially in national security (military) and diplomatic fields. Zbig's book is also nothing
more than doctrine-mongering based on complete lack of understanding of Russian history.
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki
himself proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American
Primacy".
Zbig was a political "scientist" (which is not a science) by education, fact aggravated by his Russophobia, and thus inability
to grasp fundamentals of military power and warfare–a defining characteristic of American "elites". He, obviously, missed on the
military-technological development of 1970s through 1990s, to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that classic "geopolitics" doesn't
apply anymore. Today we all can observe how it doesn't apply and is made obsolete.
(Jan.1998) US history – "How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen" – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981
"Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security
adviser to President Carter.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give
a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors). In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted
about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.
@DESERT FOX Why was it that the Brit Empire kept acting throughout the later 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries to harm
Russia, even when it technically was allied with Russia? Why the Crimean War, for example?
Why, for example, was Brit secret service all over the assassination of Rasputin and tied in multiple ways to most non-Marxist
revolutionary groups?
This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by
any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks
total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else.
@anon Like the Ukranians, the 'Balts' virtually always are controlled by somebody else. When Russia does not control the Baltic
states, they are controlled by either Poles or Germans. Russians know what that means: the Baltic states are then used as weapons
to attack Russia.
The region is much calmer when Russia controls the Baltic states, and that is before taking into consideration how the Polish-Lithuanian
Empire turned its Jews lose to terrorize all Orthodox Christians and how Germanic states later used Lutheranism as a force in
the Baltics to ignite war with Russia and, under the queer Frederick the Great also used Jewish bankers to finance wars against
Russia.
"... the behavior of the US after the Cold War suggests NATO was primarily for US hegemony and not for fending off the Evil Empire of the Soviets. ..."
"... After all, Gorbachev and Reagan ended the Cold War. And then communism collapsed(or was collapsed from the top) in Russia. And Russia was reaching out to the West for friendship and aid. Russia was at its weakest position since who knows? And it was totally friendly to the West. It was a tamed bear. But what did the US do when Russia was most pro-Western and most willing to submit(and even surrender its sovereignty)? The US expanded NATO up to Russian borders. ..."
"... Why expand NATO when there's no more Soviet threat and when Russia wants to be a friendly player with the West? It's like the moment when Vito Corleone realizes it had been Barzini all along. ..."
"... It seems NATO was never about the principle of defending free nations from the Soviets. It was about imposing US hegemony on Europe. So, the chances are that, even if Soviets had ended the Occupation of Eastern Europe soon after end of WWII, the US would have created something like NATO and pushed it all the way up to Soviet borders. ..."
"... @Asagirian As Lord Ismay once said: "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." ..."
It's been our understanding that NATO was necessary
because of the Iron Curtain. Soviets took over Eastern Europe and denied it freedom, and there
was the danger that Soviets would expand further West.
So, US and Western European nations made a Three Musketeers or Mickey Mouseketeers pact of
'one for all and all for one'.
Now, suppose we do a thought experiment of alternative history: The Soviets withdrew from
Eastern Europe, and Eastern European nations like Poland and Hungary became democratic and
capitalist soon after WWII. And there is no East and West Germany but just democratic
Germany.
Would NATO still have been created? If so, for what? To contain the Soviets? But the Soviets
left Eastern Europe in our hypothetical scenario. If NATO was created even after Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe soon after WWII,
there could be only one reason: US hegemony and domination over Western Europe.
Now, there is no way to validate a 'what if' scenario.
However, the behavior of the US after the Cold War suggests NATO was primarily for US
hegemony and not for fending off the Evil Empire of the Soviets.
After all, Gorbachev and Reagan ended the Cold War. And then communism collapsed(or was
collapsed from the top) in Russia. And Russia was reaching out to the West for friendship and
aid.
Russia was at its weakest position since who knows? And it was totally friendly to the West. It
was a tamed bear. But what did the US do when Russia was most pro-Western and most willing to submit(and even
surrender its sovereignty)? The US expanded NATO up to Russian borders.
Why expand NATO when there's no more Soviet threat and when Russia wants to be a friendly
player with the West? It's like the moment when Vito Corleone realizes it had been Barzini all along.
It seems NATO was never about the principle of defending free nations from the Soviets. It
was about imposing US hegemony on Europe. So, the chances are that, even if Soviets had ended
the Occupation of Eastern Europe soon after end of WWII, the US would have created something
like NATO and pushed it all the way up to Soviet borders.
...NATO is even more of a US
imperialist project. And this time, the 'new cold war' was entirely the fault of the US.
"... Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore there's no consequences to one's own actions. ..."
"... "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a competent military with functional weapon systems. ..."
"... The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia. ..."
Tweeting direct from NATO
meeting provides inside details not found in press articles, particularly the NATO
talking-point ending. IMO, the tweeter Mehta was right to highlight this exchange:
"Bennan: Do you know what the US policy in syria is?
"Çavuşoğlu: No, and this is the problem.
"He points to different statements from WH, Pentagon, CENTCOM, State. 'There is no clear
strategy. This is the problem.'"
Further on:
"Wow. Çavuşoğlu just compared Turkey to Ukraine, saying Ukraine let
itself be told it had to decide between West and Russia, and look what happened; Turkey
cannot be forced into same choice."
Pence threat is also stupid as there is no mechanism to expulse any member from NATO. NATO
members can only leave voluntarily.
Since when this stopped the USA?
The reason Turkey won't exit NATO are many. Among them:
1) Turkey's economy is in meltdown. It only didn't collapse yesterday because, luckily,
Turkey has only "burnt" one third of its Dollar reserves. For comparison, the usurper
government which toppled Dilma Rousseff burnt almost 50% of Brazil's then gigantic US$ 795
billion -- only to try to keep interest at a staggering 9.5% rate. Lucky for the Turkish
people, Erdogan survived the 2016 coup, but he was already trounced in the three main cities
and those reserves won't last forever. Time is in favor of the Americans in this case;
2) Contrary to, e.g. China and Russia, Turkey has a strong pro-USA political-popular base.
It really doesn't need to topple Erdogan through a violent coup (Obama made an unforced error
in 2016) in order to install a puppet government in Turkey;
3) The USA has the IMF. The IMF is the only institution which can do regime change and
nobody will question. Erdogan is, for now, refusing its "aid", but he's just one man. That
means that, even if Turkey remains with an Islamist (Ottomanist) or end up electing a neutral
government, the Americans will still be capable of exerting formidable pressure;
4)Turkey is, perhaps, the geostrategically most important individual country for NATO. If
the Americans still dream of defeating and balkanizing Russia through a hot war, then the
path will go through Turkey and the Bosphorus. It is not on rogue POTUS or Veep who will
change that.
"But current American elites have no concept of own actions having consequences."
Well, since 2002, people made a lot about the neo-cons being heavily influenced by Leo
Strauss. I think this is only part of it. These people seem to me to be just as heavily
influenced by George Berekeley: things don't really exist, there's no causation, therefore
there's no consequences to one's own actions.
Bolton
unwittingly utters truism but has no idea that it applies to him and the Outlaw US
Empire billions of times over: "Corruption cannot lead to prosperity." Nor can it field a
competent military with functional weapon systems.
Another OT note, this one about the technical development of generation 6 military
aircraft,
Hypersonic and hydrogen fueled and most likely piloted by droids or remotely given speed
and G-forces.
The US are threatening friend and foe alike, whereas those sanctions against their foe's are
real, sanctions against NATO members can be counterproductive, for instance Germany being
told to stop Nord Stream 2 and increase its contributions to NATO, 2% of Germany's GDP [4
trillion dollars] is an enormous amount of money to protect against a non existent enemy.
The
time will come when the US will be ignored, then, unless the US acts on those threats, its
own credibility will be called into question, then the only way is down.
Whenever anyone suggests that we should stop supplying bombs and military equipment to the
Saudis who are murdering Yemenis, moralists like Mike Pence, Pompeo, and the rest of the
religious right thunder, 'THEY WILL BUY ARMS FROM THE ROOOSHINS!'
So it is quite funny that they are willing to play hardball with the Turks.
The comments at the end about how Turkey can maintain good relations with NATO and at
the same time develop cooperation with Russia is clearly nonsense. NATO whole reason for
existence now is as an anti-Russia military alliance. Pence is absolutely right about
that ... you cannot be a member of NATO and develop close cooperation with Russia.
At
least in the eyes of NATO (i.e. the US) Russia is the enemy.
Wealthy politicians and businessmen suspected of corruption in their native lands are fleeing to a safe haven where their wealth
and influence shields them from arrest.
They have entered this country on a variety of visas, including one designed to encourage investment. Some have applied for asylum,
which is intended to protect people fleeing oppression and political persecution.
The increasingly popular destination for people avoiding criminal charges is no pariah nation.
It's the United States.
An investigation by ProPublica, in conjunction with the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University, has
found that officials fleeing prosecution in Colombia, China, South Korea, Bolivia and Panama have found refuge for themselves and
their wealth in this country, taking advantage of lax enforcement of U.S. laws and gaps in immigration and financial regulations.
Many have concealed their assets and real-estate purchases by creating trusts and limited liability companies in the names of lawyers
and relatives.
American authorities are supposed to vet visa applicants to make sure they are not under active investigation on criminal charges.
But the ProPublica examination shows that this requirement has been routinely ignored.
One of the most prominent cases involves a former president of Panama, who was allowed to enter the United States just days after
his country's Supreme Court opened an investigation into charges that he had helped embezzle $45 million from a government school
lunch program.
Ricardo Martinelli, a billionaire supermarket magnate, had been on the State Department's radar since he was elected in 2009.
That year, the U.S. ambassador to Panama began
sending diplomatic cables warning
about the president's "dark side," including his links to corruption and his request for U.S. support for wiretapping his opponents.
Soon after Martinelli left office in 2014, Panamanian prosecutors conducted a widely publicized investigation of corruption in
the school lunch program, and in mid-January 2015, forwarded their findings to the country's Supreme Court.
On Jan. 28, 2015,
just hours before
the Supreme Court announced a formal probe into the charges, Martinelli boarded a private plane, flew to Guatemala City for a
meeting and then entered the United States on a visitor visa. Within weeks, he was living comfortably in the Atlantis, a luxury condominium
on Miami's swanky Brickell Avenue. He is still here.
The State Department declined to comment on Martinelli's case, saying visa records are confidential and it is the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection that decides who is allowed to enter the country. CBP said privacy regulations prevent the agency from commenting
on Martinelli.
Efforts to reach Martinelli, including a registered letter sent to his Miami address, were unsuccessful.
In September this year, Panama asked to extradite Martinelli, but the former president is fighting that request, arguing there
are no legal grounds to bring him back to his home country where the investigation has broadened to include insider trading, corruption
and abuse of authority. Last December, Panama's high court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges that he used public funds to
spy on over 150 political opponents. If found guilty, he could face up to 21 years in jail.
Rogelio Cruz, who is defending Martinelli in Panama's Supreme Court, said that the former president "will return to Panama once
adequate conditions exist with respect to due process, where there are independent judges -- which there aren't."
The United States has explicit policies that bar issuing visas to foreign officials facing criminal charges in their homelands.
In 2004, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation
designed to keep the United States from becoming a haven for corrupt officials. Proclamation 7750, which has the force and effect
of law, directed the State Department to ban officials who have accepted bribes or misappropriated public funds when their actions
have "serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States."
Under the rules implementing Bush's order, consular officers do not need a conviction or even formal charges to justify denying
a visa. They can stamp "denied" based on information from unofficial, or informal sources, including newspaper articles, according
to diplomats and State Department officials interviewed for this report.
The State Department declined to provide the number of times Proclamation 7750 has been invoked, but insisted that it has been
used "robustly."
But numerous other foreign government officials, including former presidents and cabinet ministers, have slipped through the cracks,
according to court documents, diplomatic cables and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys in the United States and abroad.
The charges involved a wide range of misconduct, from stealing public funds to accepting bribes.
Six months before Martinelli entered the United States, a former Colombian agriculture minister and onetime presidential candidate,
Andres Felipe Arias, fled to Miami three weeks before he was convicted of funneling $12.5 million to wealthy political supporters
from a subsidy program that was intended to reduce inequality in rural areas and protect farmers from the effects of globalization.
The U.S. embassy in Bogota had been following Arias' trial closely and
reporting on the scandal in cables to Washington.
The trial
featured documents and witnesses saying that under Arias' watch, the agriculture ministry had doled out millions in subsidies
to affluent families, some of whom, according to media reports, had donated to Arias' political allies or his presidential campaign.
Subsidies went to relatives of congressmen, companies owned by the richest man in Colombia, and a former beauty queen. One powerful
family and its associates received over $2.5 million, according to records released by prosecutors. Another family, which included
relatives of a former senator, received $1.3 million. Both families had supported Arias' chief political ally, former Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe, with campaign contributions.
The law that
established the program did not ban wealthy landowners from getting grants, but some elite families had received multiple subsidies
for the same farm. They gamed the system by submitting multiple proposals in the names of different family members and by subdividing
their land so they could apply for grants for each parcel, court records indicate.
Yet, in November 2013, while the trial was going on, the U.S. embassy in Bogota renewed Arias' visitor visa. The State Department
refused to discuss the case, saying that visa records are confidential. But a
recent filing in federal court
showed that the U.S. embassy had flagged Arias' application, and asked him to provide documents to support his request to leave the
country while charges were pending. Arias submitted documents from the Colombian court, including a judicial order that allowed him
to travel. In the end, the embassy issued a visa because he had not yet been convicted.
Andres Felipe Arias, a former Colombian agriculture minister, who fled to the United States before he could be convicted
of funneling money from a subsidy program (GDA via AP Images)
On the night of June 13, 2014, three weeks before the judges convicted him of embezzlement by appropriation, a Colombian law that
penalizes the unauthorized use of public funds to benefit private entities, Arias packed his bags and boarded a plane. The following
month, the U.S. embassy in Bogota revoked the visa. But Arias hired an immigration attorney and applied for asylum.
"If you looked up 'politically motivated charges' in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Andres Arias next to it," said
David Oscar Markus, Arias' lead attorney. "The case [against him] is absurd and not even one that is recognized in the United States."
Over the next two years, Arias built a new life in South Florida with his wife and two children, opening a small consulting company
and renting a house in Weston.
On August 24, he was
arrested by U.S.
authorities in response to an extradition request from Colombia. He spent several months in a detention facility until his release
on bail in mid-November. Arias argues that the United States cannot extradite him because it has no active extradition treaty with
Colombia, but the U.S. Attorney's Office disagrees. A plea for asylum does not shield defendants from extradition if they are charged
in Colombia with a crime covered by the treaty between the two countries.
The agency that administers the program, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has adopted regulations designed to prevent
fraud, including requiring foreign investors to submit evidence, such as tax returns and bank statements, to prove they obtained
their money legally.
But these safeguards did not stop the daughter-in-law and grandsons of former South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan from using Chun's
ill-gotten gains to get U.S. permanent residency.
In 1996, a Korean court convicted Chun of receiving more than $200 million in bribes while in office in the 1980s, from companies
such as Samsung and Hyundai. He was ordered to return the bribes, but refused.
Part of Chun's fortune was funneled into the United States through his son, who purchased a $2.2 million house in Newport Beach,
California, according to South Korean prosecutors and real-estate records.
Millions of dollars from Chun's bribery proceeds were hidden in bearer bonds, which are notoriously difficult to trace. Unlike
regular bonds, which belong to registered owners, there is no record kept about the ownership or transfer of bearer bonds. The bonds
can be cashed out by whoever has them.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan addresses the press at the White House in 1985. Chun's relatives later gained
permanent residency in the United States by using money Chun obtained through bribes. (Bettmann via Getty Images)
In 2008, Chun's daughter-in-law, a South Korean actress named Park Sang-ah, applied for an immigrant investor visa. Park listed
her husband's bearer bonds as the source of her funds without mentioning that the money had been initially provided to him by Chun.
Eight months later, Park and her children received their conditional U.S. permanent residency cards in the mail.
In 2013, at the request of South Korean prosecutors, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into the Chun family's
wealth in the United States and subsequently
seized $1.2 million of the family's U.S. assets in the United States. The money was returned to South Korea. Despite that, Chun's
family members have retained their residency status.
Chun's relatives obtained their permanent residency by investing in an EB-5 project managed by the Philadelphia Industrial Development
Corporation, a nonprofit company. The PIDC pooled Chun's $500,000 with money from 200 other foreign investors to finance an expansion
of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in downtown Philadelphia.
The same project in Philadelphia also helped to secure permanent residency for Qiao Jianjun, a Chinese government official accused
of embezzling more than $40 million from a state-owned grain storehouse, according to reports in the People's Daily, the Chinese
Communist Party's newspaper. Qiao had divorced his wife, Shilan Zhao, in China in 2001, a fact he did not disclose to U.S. immigration
authorities. When Zhao applied for an EB-5 visa, Qiao qualified for U.S. permanent residency as an applicant's spouse.
The Justice Department launched an investigation only when it was tipped off by Chinese authorities. In January 2014,
a federal grand jury indicted Zhao and her ex-husband, Qiao, for immigration fraud, money laundering and internationally transporting
stolen funds. Zhao was arrested and released on bail. Federal authorities are pursuing Qiao, whose whereabouts remain unknown.
A trial has been set for February 2017. U.S. government attorneys have filed asset forfeiture cases to recover real estate linked
to Qiao and Zhao in Flushing, New York, and Monterey Park, California.
In April 2015, Qiao appeared on the Chinese
government's list of 100 "most wanted" officials who fled abroad after being accused of crimes such as bribery and corruption.
He and 39 other government officials and state-owned enterprise leaders on the list allegedly fled to the United States.
The list, called "Operation Skynet," is part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign, which has vowed to take
down what Chinese officials describe as corrupt "tigers" and "flies" within the country's ruling Communist Party.
Fengxian Hu was another fugitive on China's list. A former army singer and radio broadcaster, Hu headed the state-owned broadcasting
company that had a joint venture with Pepsi to distribute soft drinks in Sichuan province. In 2002, The Washington Post and The Wall
Street Journal
reported that Pepsi had accused Hu of looting the joint venture and using company funds to buy fancy cars and go on European
tours.
The same year, in a widely publicized move, Pepsi filed a case with international arbitrators in Stockholm, asking that the joint
venture be dissolved. Despite this, Hu was given a visa that allowed him to fly regularly to Las Vegas, where he was a VIP client
at the MGM casino.
In January 2010, Chinese authorities investigated Hu for corruption. But the month before, Hu had entered the United States on
a B1 visitor visa, joining his wife, a U.S. citizen living in New York.
Hu tried to obtain a green card through his wife, but the petition was rejected by U.S. immigration authorities. He applied for
asylum instead.
Meanwhile, he had gotten into trouble in the United States for losing millions in a Las Vegas casino and failing to pay a $12
million gambling debt. In 2012, he was indicted in a Nevada court on two counts of theft and one count of intentionally passing a
check without sufficient funds.
Hu pled not guilty to the charges; his lawyers claimed that his checks bounced because his bank account had been closed by Chinese
authorities. The charges against him in the U.S. were considered an aggravated felony, which is a common basis for deportation. Hu,
however, had a pending asylum case and so could not be deported.
In August 2015, a New York immigration judge denied the asylum claim. But Hu's lawyers argued that he would be tortured if he
returned to China and invoked the United Nations Convention
Against Torture , which says that an alien may not be sent to a country where he is likely to be tortured. In the end, the immigration
court suspended Hu's removal order, allowing him to remain in the United States and work here indefinitely. He will not, however,
be given permanent residency or be allowed to travel outside the country.
The absence of an extradition treaty -- coupled with a high standard of living -- makes the United States a favored destination
for Chinese officials and businessmen fleeing corruption charges.
In April 2015, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security , made a 48-hour trip to Beijing. The visit
was intended to pave the way for Chinese President Xi Jinping's U.S. visit in September 2015, according to a memorandum Johnson wrote,
which was obtained through a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the memo, Johnson said the Chinese government is seeking 132 people it said have fled to the United States to avoid prosecution.
This represents a greater number of fugitives than Chinese authorities have publicly acknowledged.
"I'm told that in prior discussions, the Chinese have been frustrated by the lack of any information from us about the 132 fugitives,"
Johnson wrote.
The Chinese request for assistance posed a dilemma for the United States. American officials are concerned about a lack of fairness
in China's criminal justice system. Human rights groups say that China continues to use torture to extract false confessions from
suspected criminals. Torture has also been documented to be part of shuanggui -- a secretive discipline process reserved for
members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Some analysts see the crackdown on corrupt officials as part of a purge aimed at the current regime's political rivals and ideological
enemies. U.S. officials say this makes returning corrupt officials to China a delicate issue for the United States.
In 2003, headlines around the world reported
widespread
street protests in Bolivia that led to security forces killing 58 people, most of them members of indigenous groups. Not long
afterward, as protesters massed up on the streets of La Paz demanding his resignation, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
resigned and fled his country along with his defense minister, Jose Carlos Sanchez Berzain.
The two men flew to the United States, where they continue to reside. In 2006, Berzain applied for political asylum, which he
was granted in 2007. On
his application, when the form asked, "Have you or your family members ever been accused, charged, arrested, detained, interrogated,
convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States?" Berzain checked the box "no," even though by
then he and de Lozada had been formally accused of
genocide by Bolivia's attorney
general. The indictment was approved
by Bolivia's Supreme Court in 2007. Berzain also stated on his application that the State Department had arranged for his travel
to the United States.
The de Lozada administration was vocally pro-American. Before it was ousted, officials had announced they would facilitate gas
exports to the United States.
After their departure, Bolivia's attorney general
publicly stated
that the administration had embezzled millions from government coffers, but did not formally file charges. He said de Lozada
had taken some $22 million from the country's reserve funds before fleeing.
De Lozada and members of his administration have dismissed the allegations as part of a politically motivated smear campaign,
but there is evidence to suggest irregularities may have occurred in the handling of the reserve funds. The former president signed
a decree shortly before leaving office authorizing the interior and finance ministers to withdraw money from Bolivia's reserve funds
without going through the normal approval process. De Lozada's former interior minister
pleaded guilty in 2004 to embezzlement after $270,000 in cash was found in an associate's home.
De Lozada, a mining mogul before he became president, moved to Chevy Chase, Maryland, an upscale suburb of Washington, D.C. He
now lives in a two-story brick house bought for $1.4 million by Macalester Limited, a limited liability company that was formed in
the British Virgin Islands and lists a post office box in the Bahamas as its principal address.
De Lozada's immigration status is unclear. He said in a sworn deposition in 2015 that he was not a U.S. citizen. His son-in-law,
who spoke to ProPublica on his behalf, would not say whether de Lozada had applied for asylum.
Berzain, meanwhile, settled in South Florida. Records show that he and his brother-in-law personally own or are listed as officers
or members of business entities that together control around $9 million worth of Miami real estate.
Some of the purchases were made in the names of entities that appear to list different variations of Berzain's name in business
records.
In addition, in the purchase of two properties, Berzain's name was added to business records only after the deal had gone through.
Berzain's brother-in-law incorporated a company called Warren USA Corp in October 2010, for example, and the company purchased a
$1.4 million residential property the following month. Three weeks after Warren USA Corp became the owner of an elegant Spanish-style
villa in Key Biscayne, Berzain was added as the company's secretary.
The following year, in May 2011, Berzain's brother-in-law created Galen KB Corp and registered as the company's president. A month
later, Galen KB Corp purchased a $250,000 condo. In August, Berzain replaced his brother-in-law as the company's president, according
to business records. Berzain is no longer listed as a company officer in either company.
During an interview in January, Berzain told ProPublica "I don't have any companies." When asked about several of the companies
associated with his name or address in public records, the former defense minister said he had a consulting firm that helped clients
set up companies and that he was sometimes added to the board of directors. Efforts to reach Berzain's brother-in-law, a wealthy
businessman and the owner of a bus company in Bolivia, were unsuccessful. Berzain's brother-in-law has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
The practice of purchasing real estate in the name of a business entity like a limited liability company, or LLC, is a common
and legal practice in high-end real-estate markets, and one that enables celebrities and other wealthy individuals to protect their
privacy.
But the practice also allows foreign officials to hide ill-gotten gains. U.S. regulations allow individuals to form business entities
like LLCs without disclosing the beneficial owner. The LLCs can be registered in the names of lawyers, accountants or other associates
-- or even anonymously in some states -- and used to purchase real estate, making it nearly impossible to determine the actual owner
of a property.
Government investigators and lawmakers have pointed out persistent gaps in U.S. policy that have enabled corrupt officials to
evade justice and hide their assets in this country. But little has changed.
Last year, a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation
said it can be "difficult" for immigration officials to identify the true source of an immigrant investor's funds. Immigration
officials told the government auditors that EB-5 applicants with ties to corruption, the drug trade, human trafficking and other
criminal activities have a strong incentive to omit key details about their financial histories or lie on their applications.
"It's very easy to get lost in the noise if you're a bad person," said Seto Bagdoyan, the accountability office's director of
forensic audits, who co-authored the GAO report.
Immigration officials, he added, have an "almost nonexistent" ability to thoroughly evaluate investors' backgrounds and trace
their assets.
Despite such weaknesses, Congress has continually
extended the EB-5
program with minor changes. The program is backed by
real-estate lobbyists who argue that it is a crucial source of financing for luxury condos and hotels. The program is
expected to thrive in a
Trump presidency because the president-elect is a developer and his son-in-law Jared Kushner received $50 million in EB-5 funds to
build a Trump-branded tower in New Jersey.
In 2010, a Senate report described how powerful foreign officials and their relatives moved millions of dollars in suspect funds
into the United States. The report said investors bypassed anti-money laundering regulations with help from U.S. lawyers, real-estate
agents, and banking institutions. Last year, ABC News
reported that lobbyists for real estate and other business groups spent $30 million in 2015 in an effort to protect the EB-5
program.
Senate investigators proposed legislation that would require companies to disclose their beneficial owners and make it easier
for authorities to restrict entry, deny visas and deport corrupt foreign officials.
A few of the proposals have been adopted, but they have not made much difference. Banks have stepped up their efforts to identify
corrupt officials and monitor their accounts. Professional groups such as the American Bar Association have issued non-binding guidelines
for their members on compliance with anti-money-laundering controls. The U.S. government has also worked with the
Financial Action Task Force , an international body set up
to fight money laundering, to bring its anti-corruption controls in accordance with the body's guidelines.
In May, the Treasury Department enacted a new rule that will take full effect in 2018 and will require financial institutions
to identify the beneficial owners of shell companies. Some advocates see the rule as a step backward. The new rule allows shell companies
to designate the manager of the account as the beneficial owner, concealing the identity of the person ultimately exercising control.
The State Department declined to say what progress, if any, it has made on the Senate subcommittee's recommendation to more aggressively
deny visas through Proclamation 7750. "The Department takes seriously congressional recommendations and devotes resources to addressing
corruption worldwide," a State Department official wrote in response to questions.
In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. The small unit, which has grown
to include 16 attorneys, aims to recover assets in the United States that are tied to foreign corruption and return the money to
the looted countries.
Over the past six years, the unit has filed around two dozen civil asset forfeiture cases in an attempt to seize money, real estate
and other assets tied to government officials from 16 countries. Assets have ranged from a lone diamond-encrusted glove worn by Michael
Jackson that was purchased by Equatorial Guinea's Vice President, Teodoro Obiang, to a $1 billion fund tied to Malaysian Prime Minister
Najib Razak.
Yet most of the money the Department of Justice has pursued remains in limbo. The case involving Chun, the former president of
South Korea, is one of only two instances in which corrupt gains have been returned to the home country through the Justice Department's
efforts. The other arose when Justice Department officials
returned $1.5 million to Taiwan from property bought with bribes paid to the family of Chun Shui Bian, the former president of
Taiwan.
The agency faces myriad challenges when attempting to seize and return assets acquired by corrupt foreign officials, including
a lack of witnesses, said Kendall Day, head of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. These officials
often shield their transactions through shell companies, offshore companies or a network of associates.
"The mission of the Kleptocracy Initiative is really to target what we call grand foreign corruption that impacts the U.S. financial
system," Day said, citing the Chun case as an example.
The 2012 Magnitsky Act gives the government power to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian nationals accused of corruption
or human rights violations. The Global Magnitsky Act would extend the same sanctions to the rest of the world, but it has yet to
be passed by Congress. Unlike Proclamation 7750, the Magnitsky laws require the government to publish a list of foreign government
officials who are barred from the United States.
In addition, the Treasury Department imposed regulations this year that aim to crack down on the use of shell companies to purchase
real estate in places like Miami and Manhattan. Title insurance companies are now required to identify the real owners of companies
purchasing high-end real estate without a mortgage. These regulations, however, are temporary.
Seems to me what that BigLie's about is this tale: Relations with Russia during the
post-USSR age were going along swell until Russia began involved in the Venezuelan
Crisis.
The attempt is to try a new narrative using a different angle to blame Russia which is the
goal of the BigLie. Signal a new line of approach in dealing with the attitude toward Russia
to the trusty echoers of His Master's Voice.
"... 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.
This is anold, 2015 article that is still rrrelenet today. Well written overview of British policies toward Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule." ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date
of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration
which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition
layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister
Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political
turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top
is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud,
shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus
inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee
on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy;
it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National
Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming
to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author,
Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia
into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian,"
"dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since
Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She
announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary
elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim
the continued legitimacy of its rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming
that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian
citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed
were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators
in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread
"Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe]
as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but
also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization,
who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza,
who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period,
Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly
independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED
money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting
irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since
2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating
project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World
Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this
meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small
fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative
to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia,
is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to
Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security
Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of
the Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the
Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda.
Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier
interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic
Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's
political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also
been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec.
5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000
to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension
of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current
attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada,
but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis
and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption
crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently
as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia.
Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed:
How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted
that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they
quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in
Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute,
on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society"
to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's
having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based
social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had
7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky
Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster
than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion
in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At
the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis
(INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a
cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University
in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI),
including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project
of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and
the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access
from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively,
the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political
side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree
of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those
who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population
"the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue
of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya
Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades
on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial
transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial
cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million
domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into
the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to
"orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential
for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people
on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not
it is not used."
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December
demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration
in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be
the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais
and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities
for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy
businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure
of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and
willingness to support innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming
known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were
highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family
and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through
doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able
to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership.
This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling,
and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks
in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the
Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies
on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf,
the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified
as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic
City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand
applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark
Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO
of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg
and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations
from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from
New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation
of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his
corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding
him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do
you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with
Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of
the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who
is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov,
writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the
playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution
in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran
of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent
Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the
U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy:
The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report
explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver
North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization
of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional
intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy''
worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often
measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly
being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get
LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots
of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of
whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related
Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that
Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren,
Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010,
p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood,
"Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India
Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic
intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and
anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity
College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other
doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern
psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital
computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling
priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles,
... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient
priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but
also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper
of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner
is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune
as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled:
The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais
and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings
of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur
comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit,"
to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
I have this quote by Morgenthau on my desktop on my computer--it is from 1957 lecture in
Naval War College:
"I would say, and I have said many times before, that if the czars still reigned in
Russia, that if Lenin had died of the measles at an early age, that if Stalin had never been
heard of, but the power of the Soviet Union were exactly what it is today, the problem of
Russia would be for us by and large what it is today. If the Russian armies stood exactly
where they stand today, and if Russian technological development were what it is today, we
would be by and large confronted with the same problems which confront us today."
In 2015 Kissinger basically reiterated the point when stated that the goal of US elites is
a break up of Russia.
I was told the same thing by Soviet specialists of the US Army who thought that what I did
was irrelevant except for my demonstrated ability to recruit Soviets.
Videos of Browder disposition in the United States in which he contradicts all his
public tales about the Russian fraud case against him, and ofthe fate of his accountant
Sergei Magnitsky - Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4
Imagine if Trump was as evasive in a deposition with Mueller as Broder was in the videos. It
just reinforces my view that Americans have no problem at all with hypocrisy, probably to do
with exceptionalism.
the videos on browder - 4 parts - focus on him being questioned in 2015...you could skip to
the last one near the end, but vid 3 and 4 are both pretty good and gaining an insight into
browder.. i am sure most here don't need any more insight into browder then they already
have... the data in the video is organized by some canucks back east in quebec i suppose..
53 million in aid from canada to the border of venezuala, mostly in columbia and some in
brazil.. that is more then twice the amount coming from the usa... interesting video
discussing this
here.. i am sure crystia freeland had a direct hand in this.. maybe she can get a date
with brandscum...
Videos of Browder disposition in the United States in which he contradicts all his public
tales about the Russian fraud case against him, and ofthe fate of his accountant Sergei
Magnitsky - Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4
Imagine if Trump was as evasive in a deposition with Mueller as Broder was in the videos. It
just reinforces my view that Americans have no problem at all with hypocrisy, probably to do
with exceptionalism.
the videos on browder - 4 parts - focus on him being questioned in 2015...you could skip to the
last one near the end, but vid 3 and 4 are both pretty good and gaining an insight into
browder.. i am sure most here don't need any more insight into browder then they already
have... the data in the video is organized by some canucks back east in quebec i suppose..
53 million in aid from canada to the border of venezuala, mostly in columbia and some in
brazil.. that is more then twice the amount coming from the usa... interesting video discussing
this
here.. i am sure crystia freeland had a direct hand in this.. maybe she can get a date with
brandscum...
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
The former head of Boris Berezovsky's
security service spoke about the relationship between famous blogger Alexey Navalny and the
British MI6 intelligence service. He succeeded in exporting about 60 servers containing a huge
amount of correspondence and documents.
"23rd December, 2007 - to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service A. Belt.
Report of agent Solomon about ending Navalny's verification and the assignment of the
pseudonym "freedom".
Had a conversation over an encrypted communication channel between the employee and the CRS
(SIS) and agent Solomon. The agent got approval for a confidential cooperation with Alexei
Navalny. It was mentioned that it is necessary for Navalny to arrange financial support to
carry out the tasks within the framework of special operation "Shiver" to undermine the
existing constitutional order in the Russian Federation. Navalny has a nickname of "freedom",
reads one of the documents.
Agent Solomon is the notorious William Browder, head of Hermitage Capital, inspirer of the
Magnitsky act, and a person who made a fortune in Russia in the 90's.
Operation "Shiver" had already been developed at Langley in 1986. The documents were signed
by then-CIA Director William Casey. The main goal of the project was to "change the
constitutional and political system in Eastern Europe and the USSR".
Tasks are described in as much detail as possible: to change the political and
constitutional state system, to acquire control over financial flows, and to extract assets
from emerging economies.
The USSR has not existed for a quarter of a century, however, the project "Shiver" is still
relevant.
"Browder spreads lies, and all his company is based solely on lies. Navalny is his student
and successor of his ideas. They partly work together, working in parallel. They absolutely
face the same direction," said Pavel Karpov, a former investigator of the Moscow Criminal
Investigations Department. He is one of those who has stirred Browder's "snake nest" and opened
schemes of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares in Russia under the leadership of
Hermitage Capital.
Here is an example of correspondence between Navalny and Browder in 2006:
"Let me very frankly formulate what I want to offer. I will teach you to grab the monsters
of the Russian economy by the balls. Soon you will become a hero of the minority shareholders
and can have their reputational capital. Probably, and political. In return I ask you to
support me when my problems come out. Am I clear?" asks Browder to Navalny. "Your information
in exchange for the loyalty of my potential. However, I'm afraid you banked on the wrong
figure. I could have problems even in my party. There I seem to be a nationalist," -- says
Navalny.
Then, under the leadership of Browder, and with his financial support, the still unknown
blogger opened the cycle of revelations. At the same time the scene appears banker Vladimir
Ashurkov. He dealt with money matters for "revelatory activities".
"Agent "freedom" was acquainted with the first phase of the secret denunciation of the
conviction of corruption and embezzlement of Russian state assets. To implement the first phase
of the plan, agent "freedom" was funded to the amount of 100 million rubles. The first part of
funds, 7 million rubles, will be transferred to our authorised representative of the Moscow
Helsinki Group until January 26th. Agent A. Belt".
The activities of the Hermitage Capital in Moscow has been completely phased out as auditor
Sergey Magnitsky was appointed to clean up any traces that remained.
"People say that he was Browder's lawyer. This is an outright lie! He was an accountant, who
was engaged in tax evasion for Browder, i.e. registered companies through which money was
withdrawn from. As I was told by Magnitsky himself, these millions were withdrawn by his own
chief, who, as I learned later, was Mr. Browder," recalls journalist Oleg Lurie.
When Magnitsky was arrested, Navalny wrote to Browder, "William, sincerely sorry. People get
used to like those who suffer in our country I'm not saying that the suffering of Sergei is
your trump card, but the more these journalists and people will learn about this suffering, the
less they will want to know what is happening".
Browder's goal was to create the maximum noise possible with information, however the
situation abroad with the "legal auditor" responded little.
"20th September 2009. To the Director of Central Intelligence.
A conversation between agent Solomon and an employee of MI6.
Further growth of public resonance will be gone unless we make adjustments to the plans of
our ongoing special events. In his message to the agent, based on information available for it,
he noted the deteriorating health of Magnitsky. It was proposed to the agent, through
authorized persons in the penitentiary system of Russia, to organize a disruption of medical
assistance to Magnitsky. The deterioration of his health will be designated as a medical error
that could lead to his death. Please pay special attention to this information", -- stated the
documents.
Magnitsky was literally sacrificed. In November 2009, he died in the hospital of the
"Matrosskaya Tishina" detention facility, and Browder announced that the prisoner was tortured,
he was also refused medical care. And then there was the "Magnitsky list".
Here is what is said in the secret documents about it:
"January 23, 2010. Sash reports on a meeting with the agent "freedom", during which he gave
the agent $300,000 for the upcoming program to support the "Magnitsky list" on social networks.
The report of the agent Sash also said that the project is linked with the death of Sergei
Magnitsky, and already in the early stages it greatly undermined the credibility of Russian
citizens in the Russian judicial and law enforcement system. This leads to growing chaos in the
Russian judicial and law enforcement system, a reduction of its credibility, and a reduction in
the credibility of Vladimir Putin. Agent A. Belt".
All this time, Browder warned Navalny against political activity.
"We have our own tasks. Bill asks you to be careful. Urge you not to interfere in the
electoral process -- it is not your task. Monitoring, reporting -- Yes. Protests -- no," --
said in his message.
Apparently, the situation has since changed. It is noteworthy that the Skype accounts of Browder and Navalny, where they started talking
in 2006, are still operational. But we failed to contact subscribers.
Dominance in technology still represent pretty powerful lever used to damage and possibly subdue Russia. King of
technological imperialism.
Notable quotes:
"... As a result, the Soviet and post-Soviet elites adopted the rules established by Washington: they became intermediaries between Western corporations and the wealth of their countries. Russia paid for this deal with the destruction of its industry and the emergence of oligarchs, enriched by mediation. But there were wins. The country has developed large national corporations that have become prominent players on the global map. The same "Gazprom". Over time, Russia has its own ambitions to expand the volume and list of exported goods. ..."
"... In response, 5 years ago, the US led an attack on it, declaring sanctions. ..."
"... - Full and unconditional surrender of Russia in the economy. The West wants through its representatives to manage Russian companies, without intermediaries to enter the Russian domestic market and get the fattest pieces. ..."
"... In addition, in the eighties the USSR lost to the West ideologically. Our society has accumulated a great fatigue from ascetic "socialism" and international expansion with ideological background. The Western model of life and economy began to seem more attractive. ..."
"... -- In the late eighties the Soviet Union accumulated external debts, in full working printing press in order to Supplement the budget and ensure the salary of the people. The planned economy was unable to provide the country with basic goods. And today, private business is able to buy anything and anywhere. Agriculture not only feeds the country on its own, but also has become a major exporter of grain, poultry and pork. The financial system is arranged very rationally: the state debt is minimized and plays a purely technical role, budget revenues exceed expenditures. ..."
"... And from this point of view, the country is again at a crossroads. In 2019, we can see a new wave of the global economic crisis. The first signs of this were already evident at the end of last year, when commodity prices fell sharply and the shares of American companies fell in price. If these trends continue, Russia will not receive easing of sanctions. So, we need to act and strongly non-trivial. ..."
"... It is already clear with whom we can develop further: with the leading Asian countries. At the same time, expanding commodity expansion in foreign markets, it is important to move to a new mercantilism: sell excess, buy only the most necessary, and produce everything else within the country. ..."
Article from the newspaper: weekly "Arguments and Facts" № 1-2 09/01/2019
Is the scenario of suffocation of the USSR, carried out by the US 30 years ago, similar to
the events that are happening now, and what Russia needs to fear most? "AiF" asked these
questions to the Director of the Institute of new society, economist Vasily Koltashov.
How the world has changed
Alexey Makurin," AIF": Looking at the events taking place in recent years, you catch
yourself thinking that all this has already happened. The current strategy of suffocation of
Russia by America one in one copies the same strategy of times of Reagan. In the eighties, the
United States also hampered the construction of a gas pipeline from Siberia to Europe. The fall
in oil prices also drained our budget, and defense spending grew. And the army was involved in
the conflict in the southern country: Afghanistan. The West deliberately repeats the plan that
brought him victory in the cold war?
Vasily Koltashov: it's more of a coincidence. But even if there is some scenario, the game
this time is some stupid. In the days of Reagan and Bush senior Americans were more rational,
thinner. And now, in everything they do, there is an element of hysteria caused by the need to
respond to the complex state of their own Affairs. Compared with the eighties in the us huge
public debt and huge bubbles in the stock market, threatening investors ruin. The imbalances
that have accumulated in the economy are blocking the development of industrial production.
Much other than agriculture and raw material extraction is often expensive and uncompetitive.
These problems provoke a conflict not only with Russia, but also with China, with other
Eurasian centers of capitalism, which took shape in recent decades.
30 years ago, Western countries revived and developed after the crisis of the seventies. The
orbit of influence of the USA included Pakistan, Turkey, China. Now Trump has stopped financing
Pakistan. In Turkey, there was an attempt of a coup d'état in which Ankara accused
Washington. The Americans are waging a trade war against the Chinese. These and other countries
that do not find a common language with the United States, are increasingly trading among
themselves. The American press writes about the" Eastern Entente", implying the Eurasian
powers.
Increasingly, there are disputes and conflicts between Americans and their European allies,
which was unthinkable before. In such a situation, a plan to weaken Russia, similar to the
scenario of Reagan advisors, can no longer work.
-- What did the West want, putting pressure on the USSR in the eighties?
- I think the West did not seek to destroy the Soviet Union, but just tried to solved a more utilitarian
problem: acquiring new markets for their products. At that time, neoliberal globalization became the
main mechanism of economic growth, it was important for the West to draw countries into its
orbit, which were previously somehow isolated from the world market. They bought the Russian nomenklatura like they buy local
elites in Latin America and tried to concert Russia into Latin American country. They almost succeeded.
How did Ronald Reagan scare the USSR by joking on August 11, 1984?
-- What about Reagan's "evil Empire"statement?
-- It was preparation for the beginning of negotiations from a position of strength. Behind
this ideological rhetoric was another meaning: if you continue to maintain its planned economy,
closed to free trade, we will begin to destroy it, and if you agree to our terms, we will offer
you a deal.
As a result, the Soviet and post-Soviet elites adopted the rules established by Washington:
they became intermediaries between Western corporations and the wealth of their countries.
Russia paid for this deal with the destruction of its industry and the emergence of oligarchs,
enriched by mediation. But there were wins. The country has developed large national
corporations that have become prominent players on the global map. The same "Gazprom". Over
time, Russia has its own ambitions to expand the volume and list of exported goods.
In
response, 5 years ago, the US led an attack on it, declaring sanctions.
- What is their purpose in the current situation?
- Full and unconditional surrender of Russia in the economy. The West wants through its
representatives to manage Russian companies, without intermediaries to enter the Russian
domestic market and get the fattest pieces.
How Russia has changed
- This time Russia does not give up and attacks itself, as is happening in the same Syria.
What changed?
- The country and enterprises are now run by people with a market view of the world who know
the value of the wealth they dispose of. It was for Gorbachev that Soviet factories were an
abstraction, he did not understand their true value. His concessions to the US and Europe were
completely irrational from a commercial point of view. It's impossible now.
In addition, in the eighties the USSR lost to the West ideologically. Our society has
accumulated a great fatigue from ascetic "socialism" and international expansion with
ideological background. The Western model of life and economy began to seem more
attractive. The war in Afghanistan was declared meaningless. And now the Syrian conflict,
Russia does not solve a particular ideological goals. The military plays the role of guards of
its economic interests. Without any doubt, it would be more difficult for our government to
agree with OPEC on limiting oil production, if not for the successes in Syria. This agreement
in 2017-2018 allowed to raise oil prices and helped to resume economic growth in Russia.
-- Was it possible for the Soviet leadership to influence world oil prices?
- The USSR, too, nothing prevented to sit down at the negotiating table with OPEC. But that
wouldn't change the situation. Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters were then loyal allies of
the United States. The West then concentrated all the world's capital, he put the OPEC
countries conditions: create comfortable prices for us, and we will invest in your economy.
And today, Saudi capital seeks to play an independent role, Riyadh's relations with
Washington have become cooler, and with Moscow, on the contrary, warmer. And the US itself is
increasingly supplying hydrocarbons for export: it is predicted that in 2019 they will come out
on top in the world for oil production. But this leadership is provided to Americans by
expensive shale oil, the extraction of which becomes unprofitable at prices below $ 40 per
barrel. So, for the US, very low oil prices are now also unprofitable.
On the other hand, the dependence of the Russian budget on oil and gas today is also higher
than 30-35 years ago, when the country had a more powerful industry. This is an additional
risk.
-- What new qualities acquired by the Russian economy allow it to successfully withstand
Western pressure?
-- In the late eighties the Soviet Union accumulated external debts, in full working
printing press in order to Supplement the budget and ensure the salary of the people. The
planned economy was unable to provide the country with basic goods. And today, private business
is able to buy anything and anywhere. Agriculture not only feeds the country on its own, but
also has become a major exporter of grain, poultry and pork. The financial system is arranged
very rationally: the state debt is minimized and plays a purely technical role, budget revenues
exceed expenditures.
Where the main threats
-- But aren't the military expenditures, which have to be made in the conditions of
confrontation with the United States, too high? Will it not be possible that the new arms race
will be too much for the country?
- Financing of the defense industry to the detriment of consumer and other civil industries
usually occurs in the planned mobilization system, where all the resources of the country are
concentrated by the state. And in a market economy, such imbalances appear only during the war,
when budget distortions arise and private companies begin to focus more on military orders than
on grass-roots demand. There is no such thing in Russia now, although the government's
attention to defense capability is growing along with the pressure of the US and its
allies.
- Where does the main danger come from in such a situation?
-- Not exactly from the USA. The main threat to Russia is low effective demand within the
country. The weakness of the ruble, the low rate of economic growth -- all this is a
consequence of the poverty of the mass buyer.
And from this point of view, the country is again at a crossroads. In 2019, we can see a
new wave of the global economic crisis. The first signs of this were already evident at the end
of last year, when commodity prices fell sharply and the shares of American companies fell in
price. If these trends continue, Russia will not receive easing of sanctions. So, we need to
act and strongly non-trivial.
With whom will trade? Expert on how Russia can live under sanctions
It is already clear with whom we can develop further: with the leading Asian countries. At
the same time, expanding commodity expansion in foreign markets, it is important to move to a
new mercantilism: sell excess, buy only the most necessary, and produce everything else within
the country. This is a traditional trade on the "method of cat Matroskin", which existed for
thousands of years: "To buy something you need, you must first sell something unnecessary." All
need to produce themselves.
And it is important to support the Russian buyer. This may be a preferential mortgage loan
at 3-5% per annum, which will stimulate demand for housing and the sectors of the economy that
are associated with construction. This may be an increase in the number of school teachers,
doctors and kindergarten workers. We need an hourly wage to let people know what their time is
worth. It is extremely important to have a tax-free minimum income (at least 50 thousand rubles
per month). It is necessary to interest migrant workers to live in Russia and leave money in
our country, which will help to create new jobs. We need to directly give people money and
encourage all kinds of entrepreneurship, release the economic energy of society.
Do you think Trump is in anyway worse than his predecessors?
Well from my perspective, he's worse than his predecessors because, for a brief period of
time, he offered to hand me over to Putin!
Well, I would imagine you do have skin in the game because of that.
Also, he doesn't seem to have the level of he doesn't read briefing reports or have any
specifications at all about what this guy's up to.
What is your opinion on the future of America as a result of what Putin did during the 2016
election? Has he succeeded in striking a permanent blow against democracy in this country, for
lack of a better way of putting it?
Well, I believe that the institutions of United States are now being tested. It's kind of
like a it's a virus that has now has tried to infect the United States. I believe the
institutions are the immune systems in the United States. I think that United States will
survive this attack, and as far as Putin is concerned, I think that he has done himself very
grave long-term harm to his own interests. Because the next regime in the United States is
going to come down so hard on Putin, he's not going to know what hit him. He's playing such a
short-term game that he doesn't understand that whether it's Democrats or Republicans, any
normal reasonable person will want to be absolutely, devastatingly aggressive towards Russia
after Trump is finished.
So in a sense this pop-culture image of Putin as a grand strategist you think is flawed?
I think he's a highly effective short-term tactician and a very, very stupid strategist,
because his long-term interests are not served by alienating the entire Western world to sort
of rally against him. He can do all these frauds and scams and tricks on a short-term basis,
but pretty much everybody understands what he's up to.
But without that
basic level of trust and understanding between them, any dialogue rests upon shaky foundations.
It was never supposed to be like this. The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new
era.
For a time Russia retreated from the world stage, but now it is back with a vengeance, eager
to consolidate its position nearer home; to restore something of its former global role and to
make up for perceived slights perpetrated by the West.
So where did it all go wrong? Why were Russia and the West unable to forge a different type
of relationship? Who is to blame? Was it US over-reach and insensitivity, or Russia's nostalgia
for Soviet greatness? Why have things now got so bad and is it correct to describe the present
state of affairs as a "new Cold War"?
In 2014, in the wake of Russia's annexation of the Crimea, Mr Putin spoke to the Russian
Duma, noting that "if you compress the spring all the way to its limit it will snap back hard.
You must remember this", he stressed.
xxx 10 hours ago (Edited) Washington is having radioactive ambitions. This is the worst time
in history to pick a fight against Russia. They haven't been this motivated and ready to fight
against external threats than today.
If the cabal couldn't do it after 1989, they deserve a good spanking if they think they
could do it now.
Anyway this is also the worst of times for the USA to try to attack Russia given the
situation back home.
America is becoming more and more moronic by the day...
xxx 10 hours ago Wake up and quickly. xxx 8 hours ago After the forced dissolution of the
USSR in 1991 , America in all its perfidious and treacherous glory , promised that NATO ( their
auxiliary army ) would not move one inch towards the Russian border....ever ! In true American
honesty , they kept their word until the ink was nearly dry and instantly started surrounding
Russia with hundreds of military bases. However , their arrogance and childlike
superciliousness led them to take their eye of the ball.....they really believed that they were
" The Indispensable Nation ". Russia , determined never to be humiliated again , quietly began
to develop 21st century weaponry and is now years ahead of America.
America can be as bombastic and militaristic as they like, but recent developments in the ME
has shown the awakened world that they are a spent force verging on bankruptcy and their future
is similar to what they had planned for Russia .....corruption , decay and disintegration !!!
xxx 8 hours ago (Edited) Yes it did and there was no ink to dry. It appears it was a verbal
promise. That is Gorbi's excuse which I think is BS. Gorbi is an agent thus he got his
foundation in San Francisco (don't tell anyone) later on.
on the other hand the USA is in a financial shitstorm. I'm guessing there is one brother who
wants to "nuke it" and the other brother is like, well lets not do that..
because anyone who is promised a piece of russia eats their nukes 11 hours ago Until the US
collapses on it's own accord there will be plenty of exceptional kool aid drinking small ****
clowns from the one exceptional nation on the planet that will push for war and destruction to
"keep us safe" and "kill them over there so they don't do it here." Plenty of idiots out there
that believe the outrageous military budget is a "small price to pay for our freedom" and
others who say we don't spend anywhere near enough. USA USA USA never wrong always right.
Ah yes, our freedoms that we must cherish. Our cars, phones, and internet devices squeal on
us. Cops and the IRS stealing your money and property with no charges levied. In one instance
the cops staked out nurseries and if you bought too much fertilizer it was assumed you were
growing pot. Based only on this the cops got a warrant and in the dead of night and busted into
the home of 2 ex CIA employees and handcuffed and terrorized these people as they tore their
house apart. Nothing was found as these people were not growing pot there or anywhere. Or some
loser in LA calling the the Wichita KS cops giving a local Wichita address claiming he already
shot one person and was holding others hostage. All a big lie with an unarmed man shot dead by
the cops. One phone call to the cops, whether true or not, and your freedom evaporates. Or some
idiot hates you so doctors a video that goes viral and you lose your job, your friends shun
you, and hate mail piles up in your mailbox and your boss won't hire you back even when the
truth wins out.
As far as confiscation far too many believe it is connected to drug deals. Plenty of small
business owners had their money stolen by the IRS because they were making regular cash
deposits under 10 grand and the banks were required to turn them in. In the eyes of the IRS
with no other proof that money was from dealing drugs. Plenty of people stopped for minor
infraction so the cops toss the car and if you're carrying a bunch of cash, even if you can
produce a withdrawl slip, it's confiscated as you must have acquired it dealing drugs. Happened
to one guy buying a car from a seller who would take only cash. In one instance they caught a
kid dealing drugs and confiscated and sold his parents house even though he did not make any
deals in the house, they couldn't prove it but assumed he did, nor were drugs found there. No
charges filed. Ah, but the DA's and cops say they are underfunded and need to do crime to fight
crime. Like giving themselves raises and vacations and having parties. Or your local cops
stocking up on hard core military hardware.
7 hours ago It's quite stunning that in the 'Land of The Free' the police routinely steal
citizens wealth as they want to. I'm not sure even the Robber Baron's in Europe hundreds of
years ago were that blatant.
Is there a plan to prevent this? A Union of decent people to join the police to force the
rotten core out and to form shell companies that safeguard people's possessions?
If not: why not make one now.
11 hours ago Lebensraum?
Were the National Worker's Socialist Party and the Third Reich on the right trail?
11 hours ago This has been the policy since the Clinton years. Nothing new here. 12 hours ago
(Edited) This Janusz Bugajski dude is a generic Russophobe of Polish descent. His irrational
hatred of all-things Russian is typical of the rabid Catholic Poles who've invaded Orthodox
Christian Russia multiple times over the last millennia.
In fact, in the early 17th century, during Russia's "Time of Troubles", the Catholic Poles,
with the Pope's blessing, invaded Russia several times burning hundreds of villages across
Russia while slaughtering many thousands of innocent ethnic Russian men, women, and children
when they wouldn't convert to Catholicism. This culminated in 1611 when the Poles nearly burned
Moscow to the ground.
After what the Catholic Poles (and various fk'ing Popes) have done to Orthodox Christian
Russians over the centuries, who can blame the Russians for wanting a little payback after WW2.
12 hours ago Russia owes the Poles trillions in reparations. A moar satanic betrayal is hard to
find as occurred in the period of 1939-1945. 11 hours ago
(Edited) Reparations can work both ways, particularly in Europe with its millennia-long history
of back-and-forth wars between nations.
Dependent upon what you define as the statue of limitations, are war reparations pegged to
the last century, three centuries, five centuries, etc ?. Be careful what you ask for; the
Catholic Poles have a nasty violent history that goes back many centuries, long before the USSR
ever existed.
If there's one thing everyone in today's Washington can agree on, it's that whenever an
official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous,
there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.
With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the
violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.
Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and
hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn't.
Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title "Managing
Russia's dissolution," author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only
seek to contain "Moscow's imperial ambitions" but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia
as a whole.
Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions
that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow's neo-imperialism a new strategy is
needed, one that nourishes Russia's decline and manages the international consequences of its
dissolution.
Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping
Russia's might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and
regional fragmentation. But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively
stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the
Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an "imperial construct."
The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia
needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and
economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly
ungovernable...
To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills
over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia's diverse regions and
promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.
Even more alarming is Bugajski's argument that the goal should not be self-determination for
breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries . "Some
regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has
forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking
a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would
directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear
warheads.
So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?
The author bio on the Hill's piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for
European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop:
Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US
government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to
NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable
who's who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed
Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at
the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.
To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and
arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if
possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is
not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now
openly talk of a "Calexit," and many more in Mexico of a reconquista .)
Meanwhile, it's hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski's coming out in favor
of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in
geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that
China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious
intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn't appear to have noticed or
been ruffled by Bugajski's immodest proposal.
Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what's legal rather than illegal, the real
outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski's virtual declaration of war
notable.
But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if
you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of
the month.
Putin knows that if he ignores the West and provides strong path for Russia growth,
re-building economy, manufacturing and military; building international relationships - it
will strengthen the country in a horror of it's enemies.
While others panicked over drop in oil prices - Putin was making adjustments to weather
out the storm. While many nations were taking out massive development loans [advised by city,
chase, goldman, etc] - Russia balanced the budget. While US government is in mayhem over
protecting the border [seems like no brainer] - Putin continues with strong central policy.
And the US sanction that crushed so many countries - appears to have limited effect [slowing
down some growth].
This author, Bugajski, [MI5 agent] wrote countless self-promoting books. Russia will never
want to fight a war with NATO [their customers]. Britain and France already lost that war.
Russia is just waiting for EU and NATO to collapse over money disagreement. Because they were
all happy as long as US was paying for all of it. Not anymore. Standby for Collapse of EU and
NATO show coming soon.
The Russian Confederation of Labour (KTR) says that the average life expectancy for men is
actually less than 65-years-old in over 60 regions in Russia. "KTR does not support such
decisions and declares its intention to launch a broad public campaign against their
implementation," the organization said in a statement .
You start off with "Putin is a cuck" which may or may not be a fact but if you actually
read the article it clearly states "President Medvedev" and raising the retirement age
from...wait for it... 60 to 63?? Really??
Most west european countries have a retirment age of around 65 years. In scandinavic
countries they are going to increase to 67. They realized that importing rapefugees is not
going to solve the demographic crisis.
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders
from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
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. "
[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is "led to believe."
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989
that the U.S. would not take advantage ("I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall") of
the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at
that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the
collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.
[2]
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.
[3]
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
falconflight 13 hours ago It was a horrible betrayal of a promise that should have been greatly
enhanced by promoting free enterprise concepts, and personal freedoms propaganda (Not lies),
and even economic assistance where reasonable. A historical opportunity lost. Those powerful
Kremlinologists couldn't pivot, it was easier to continue to treat Russia as an existential
adversary and in certain circumstances, purposely attempt to humiliate them, such as in
Serbia.
A perfectly good article, I'm sure, but why diffuse ourselves [and engender feelings of
fear and hopelessness as you express] when a strategic pressure point has presented?
Johnstone makes no mention of Bill Browder. Nor do the [100, so far] commenters.
BILL BROWDER is a key figure in the anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria. The notorious Trump
Tower meeting was about the Magnitsky Act, a fabrication by Browder to hide his financial
crimes. Browder "testified" in the Senate expressly to demonize Putin. Browder's contacts in
the IC, the Jewish Lobby, and the fawning media have enabled his propaganda assault this
week. He's appeared -- unchallenged, virtually unquestioned -- on countless talk shows. But
he's been running scared at the mention of interrogation by Russians. There are huge holes in
his story, made clear in his deposition in the Prevezon case. The truth will bring him down!
And perhaps his Deep State supporters, along with him.
Ask your Senators if they've heard/read Browder's 2015 deposition in the Prevezon
case. (See comment 161 under The Untouchable Mr. Browder? by Israel Shamir for
links.)
BTW, have you seen "THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES" that Phil Giraldi
posted today? Debunking anti-Russian criminal sociopaths like Bill Browder will go a long way
to improving relations. Not to mention easing pressure on the unfortunate Trump.
@RobinG
UWell, we here in Russia know all this (about Browder) for quite a time. What new did you
find? It's just one story in long list of those written and spoken for western idiots like
Scripals
, MH17, chemicals in Syria and WMD in Iraq, Russian meddling in f-n US elections and so on.
Eat it all dummies.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
"... It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. ..."
"... In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election. ..."
"... Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme. ..."
"... As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics. ..."
"... The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. ..."
"... Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture. ..."
"... Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot. ..."
"... karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this.. ..."
"... This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". ..."
"... And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018. ..."
"... Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015). ..."
"... The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all. ..."
"... One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then. ..."
"... Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part. ..."
"... Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for). ..."
"... The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well). ..."
"... If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column. ..."
"... i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'.. ..."
"... as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site. ..."
"... the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest ..."
"... "MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'." ..."
"... Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. ..."
"... Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example. ..."
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
The person(s) who first published documents of the shady UK organization Integrity Initiative decided that the discussion is about
the Initiative is not yet sufficient and published more documents.
The
first dump on the Cyberguerilla site happened on November 5. We discussed it
here . A smaller
dump on November 29 revealed more about the UK government paid Integrity Initiatives influence work in Germany, Spain and Greece.
A
third dump followed today.
The leaker, who uses the widely abused Anonymous label, promises to publish more:
Well-coordinated efforts of the Anonymous from all over the world have forced the UK politicians to react to the unacceptable
and in fact illegal activity of the British government that uses public money to carry out misinformation campaigns not only in
the EU, US and Canada but in the UK as well, in particular campaigns against the Labour party.
The Integrity Initiative is now under first official investigation. We promise to give close scrutiny to the investigation that
we believe should be conducted honestly, openly and absolutely transparently for the society, rather than become an internal and
confidential case of the Foreign Office.
To show our expertise in the investigation as well as to warn the UK government that they must not even try to put it all down
to the activity of some charity foundations and public organizations we reveal a part of documents unveiling the true face of
The Institute for Statecraft and some information about its leadership.
...
As the scandal in the UK is gaining momentum, it is ever so striking that European leaders and official representatives remain
so calm about the Integrity Initiative's activity in their countries. We remind you that covert clusters made up for political
and financial manipulation and controlled by the UK secret services are carrying out London's secret missions and interfering
in domestic affairs of sovereign states right in front of you.
...
This is another part of documents that we have on the Integrity Initiative. We do not change the goals of this operation. When
we return with the next portion of revelations, names and facts depends on how seriously the UK and EU leaders take our intentions
this time.
The dump includes invoices, internal analyses of international media responses to the Skripal affair, the Initiative's operations
in Scotland, France and Italy, some strategy papers and various other stuff. There are some interesting bits about the cooperation
of the Initiative with British Ministry of Defense. It will take me a while to read through all of it.
A "strictly confidential" proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread
the Integrity Initiative's state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language
of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for "counter activism" through "negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back,
etc." for €50,000 per month.
The offer claims that the company can launch hundreds of "news" pieces per day on as many websites. It notably also offers to
"edit" Wikipedia articles.
In short: This proposal describes large disinformation operations under the disguise of fighting alleged Russian disinformation.
It is at the core what the Integrity Initiative, which obviously requested the proposal, is about.
But as we saw in the information
revealed yesterday there is more to it. The Initiative, which has lots of 'former' military and intelligence people among its
staff, is targeting the political left in Britain as well as in other countries. It is there where it becomes a danger to the democratic
societies of Europe.
I'd bet a weeks wages on it that this is where Craig Summers came from and what he was ! This blog is the antidote to the official
spin! It was good to here from Craig Murray very thought provoking regards tactics.we all need our own method ! But not be gagged.
I respect others ways we are on the same side .being united is the defence against devide and rule.
I wonder what the Tory's
think of this scandal they must be angry at this attack on democracy, nah only joking! It'l be the dog that did'nt bark ! just
like the media oh and the police ! One rule for them 'no rule' opression for us 99%
thanks b.... aside from wondering if this is Russia accessing and sharing this, i think the sticking point is in this "Unintegrity
initiative" going after the uk political left... that is where i think this is going to get traction as more folks are going to
wake up if they see how deep and ugly this goes in targeting their own..
i could be wrong, but if this news catches on, or the uk MP women keeps hammering away on this, i think we will see some results..
i opened the pdf... here is a quick list of their objectives..
investigate sources of disinformation, perform threat assessment, and identify opportunities to combat false narratives
debunk fake news and black PR operations
discredit and intimidate the platforms broadcasting fake news
promote democratic principles and criticize the Russian illiberal model in the public debate, online. This plan should
be implemented in every targeted country and language, including Russian.
In Australia the scale of tendentious anti-Chinese propaganda is absurd . Australia is flailing around trying to cope with changing
circumstances . Already at a disadvantage in 'reading ' the world because of her geographical isolation the clear bias of information
she now faces from the Anglo/ U S media and government systems puts her at a disadvantage in forming intelligent policies .
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Dec 14, 2018 4:38:49 PM |
link
Can anyone make a zip with all dumps and files? For sharing and archiving this would be much easier.. As i believe it will not
last long till the scribd uploads etc are DMCAed.. My LUKS+Veracrypt secured storage system would be a safe bet for archiving,
so i would volunteer..
Much appreciated!
Note that this document --and I've seen more-- presumes there is a large scale Russian disinformation campaign going on. Other
documents presume Skripal was poisoned by Russia.
Once you run with these documents, beware that you are making those presumptions yours . That may be the objective here.
Integrity Initiative got a lot of scrutiny because they used their Twitter account to attack Corbyn. In it's latest info dump,
Anonymous describes additional UK political manipulation, writing that the Director of The Institute for Statecraft Christopher
Donnelly:
... lobbied the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for an inquiry into Russia's interference in
the Catalan referendum. He invited members of the Integrity Initiative Spain cluster Francisco de Borja Lasheras and Mira Milosevich-Juaristi.
At that moment they were receiving funds from the Foreign Office, i.e. the UK intelligence paid its own agents for fake
proof of Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum and later told them to lie to the Parliament to convince it to take
anti-Russian steps .
"Simon Bracey-Lane: Currently runs the IfS "Integrity Initiative" network communications and network development process; deep
experience in democratic election campaign processes in UK and especially in USA, viz: Regional Campaign Organiser: John Wisniewski
for Governor of New Jersey, USA. January - May 2017; Statewide Campaign Organiser: Bernie Sanders for President 2016, USA. Sept
2015 – May 2016; special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process."
Whatever the truth of the matter, he can definitely multitask. Running the II network communications and development process
(cultivating, recruiting, handling?) while also being a research fellow at the II's 'parent organization' Institute for Statecraft?
I wonder how many hours he has left in a day to sleep!
Then again he seems to have form in this regard. 'Special study of Russian interference in the election process' simultaneously
as being a key organizer in Sanders' campaign. Maybe he did his 'special study' in his free time?
Pure brazen depravity. And how will the average UK citizen become informed of what seems treasonous activity? Seems venders with
broadsheets in the style of yesteryear standing on street corners yelling EXTRA! need to return so the public can be informed
of its government's activities--Social Media is not sufficient.
Bevin and other UK citizens: What do you call your Swamp?
Any thoughts as to why exactly Russia became the chief demon? It seems the hysterical propaganda was focused exclusively on ISIS
until Putin spoke at the UN announcing Russia's intervention in Syria. Then the propaganda shifted, first directed at Putin, then
generally at Russia and Putin together. Is it anger over the prevention of imperialist design in the Middle East?
It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west
became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers.
This belated realisation, that the prize that the west had gained and plundered in the '90s (from the collapse of the Soviet
Union) had managed to wriggle free, seems to be something that the west can't accept.
In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen
Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign
disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after
the Russia Gate was played up following the election.
Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit
list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped
no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump.
Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme.
Oh well, looks like its almost over for Truth, although some truth probably gets allowed if enough of the lies are also presented. So my take is the anti Russia hysteria was just a clever way of getting support for a war on Truth (fake news).
Russia now has a similar initiative said to combat fakes news from US which will likely be used against Putin critics (US agents).
The law allows them "to block online content, including social media websites, whose activities are deemed "undesirable" or "extremist."
Maybe Putin is part of the Fake Wrestling game. Heel or Face, your choice.
I see the EU has set up a rapid alert system to help EU member states recognize disinformation campaigns, and increase the
budget set aside for the detection of disinformation from . It will also press technology companies to play their part in cracking
down on fake news. Major social media platforms have already signed up to a code of conduct. One minister said the EU would not
stand for "an internet that is the wild west, where anything goes".
Macron introduced a bill recently seeking to get " judges and the media sector's regulator involved in the fight against fake
news. A fact-checking state-run website would be created and social media would have to pitch in by warning users when a post
is sponsored -- or when someone pays to give it better visibility in a feed."
I suppose the War on Truth has gone global. I wont bother to mention China as they are the role model the West
follows.
As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and
has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics.
@14 What do you call your Swamp? "The Establishment", coined, I believe, by the historian AJP Taylor.
The founder of modern journalism William Cobbett used to call it "The Thing"
The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. Robert Parry wrote about it, and its contrast with
truth, a couple years ago.
The idea of questioning the claims by the West's officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it.
"Truth" is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with
the West's "group thinks," no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes "fake news."
So, we have the case of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius having a starry-eyed interview with Richard Stengel, the State
Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, the principal arm of U.S. government propaganda.
Entitled "The truth is losing," the column laments that the official narratives as deigned by the State Department and The
Washington Post are losing traction with Americans and the world's public.
Stengel, a former managing editor at Time magazine, seems to take aim at Russia's RT network's slogan, "question more," as
some sinister message seeking to inject cynicism toward the West's official narratives.
"They're not trying to say that their version of events is the true one. They're saying: 'Everybody's lying! Nobody's telling
you the truth!'," Stengel said. "They don't have a candidate, per se. But they want to undermine faith in democracy, faith
in the West." . . here
Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 14, 2018 8:47:12 PM |
link
@15
Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front
to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the
"blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot.
@ 15 jayc, @18 ADKC and @21 karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with
the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now
you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for
this..
... now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available
for this..
Posted by: james | Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | 26
This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about
the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good".
And the "common good" is decided by paymasters. Somewhere in between are mass media populated by folks particularly averse to
thinking -- again, they were selected by the employers not to think but to write and talk "correctly". But the press/TV lords
will not chisel all details of what is true and important, and what is false, unimportant or both, so journalists can absorb it
from think tanks and briefing from government informed sources. There are also astro-turfs and so on.
And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are
the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces
of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military
and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative
body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In
other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely
double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was
mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018.
... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics
and russias commitment to going into syria..
I think we can surmise that the Russian objection to US bombing Syria in September 2013 was countered with a two-prong strategy:
> doubling down in Syria via ISIS;
> pushing hard for overthrow of Ukrainian government to: a) punish Russia, and b) keep Russia busy so that the Russians
refrain from any further support for Syria
It was a superb and well-thought out strategy . . . that failed miserably. The coup in Ukraine succeeded and ISIS came within
weeks of defeating Assad BUT Russia managed to secure the best parts of Ukraine -and- intervened in Syria anyway (along with Iran).
Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained.
History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course
. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.
So the strategy changed once again. MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan. Obama's devious faux peacefulness
that used covert action and proxy forces could not succeed against determined opposition from Russia/China. To prevail, Empire
strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that
required re-developing nationalism. In short, "MAGA".
My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even
if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through
loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before
a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.
There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms
an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these
conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links
regarding ISIS (like this one).
This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent
obeservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like
the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional!
"f*ck the World".
Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014.
Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015).
Trump was the ONLY populist, out of 19 contenders, in the Republican race. Hillary told Democratic-friendly media to focus
on Trump and did things during the Presidential race that call into question her desire to actually win. Trump is a MUCH better
choice for a MAGA nationalist than Hillary.
You were right then, and you are right now. My one beef with your 2016 election analysis is that it seems to me you shortchange
slightly the evidence of a real conflict and possibly fissure within the oligarchic elite, only certain segments of which seem
convinced that now is the time for MAGA. Others among the actual power brokers would I think have preferred HRC and 4-8 more years
of neoliberal internationalist interventionist grift a la Obama before having to finally turn to the MAGA nationalist strategy
(which given the resource struggles that will emerge over the next decades was always inevitable once the Project for the New
American (Israeli) Century collapsed, as it was bound to once Russia called its bluff in Syria.) But this is a minor point. What
is much more important is that behind MAGA is an envisioned world war on the scale of WWI and WWII in which "The West" takes on
China-Russia leading to the death of probably everybody.
"..my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and
russias commitment to going into syria..."
I think that the proper context begins with the failure of Medvedev's Russia to veto the UNSC motion establishing a No Fly
zone over Libya. Inter alia this led to a real reverse for and an humiliation of China which had large financial investments as
well as large numbers of personnel involved in Ghadaffi's imaginative schemes.
My guess, and it is not a particularly well informed one, is that after the Libyan disaster-the worst sort of imperialist over
reach and brutality not only did China realise that Imperialism was reverting to its nightmarish type, but Russians leaders saw
that a permanent alliance-until the defeat of the empire- was the only alternative that it and China had to 'hanging separately'.
And that the same went for Iran and Syria-nobody could trust the west any longer and it would be foolish, and dangerous, to continue
to do so.
The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the
one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of
the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all.
Of course, 2011 was the last in a long series of increasingly stupid US aggressions, all of which Russia knew very well were aimed
at it as much as the selected sacrificial victim.
Those who say that Saddam was about oil could not be more wrong: he was a human sacrifice, slaughtered ritually on the corpses
of a million of his fellows, to demonstrate that the USA can do what it chooses when it wishes.
Karl Rove was wrong: not even Empires can create their own realities. The extravagant and bloody theatre of decades swaggering
around the middle east finds the US not only poorer but weaker than it was in 1980.
"It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles." b
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Posted by: V | Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | 32
It is more complicated. Wikipedia is sprawling and manipulations happen on entry basis, and it often leaves "controversies".
I also discovered that it is worth to brush up on language skills, if there are any. For example, on recent events in Crimea there
is an entry "Crimea Crisis" with Russian and Polish versions, and Polish "pro-Westerners" somehow left few traces of activity.
I wonder how is it in German and French Wikipedias. In English, think tanks and deep states indeed lack sufficient counter-activity.
Why didn't you make an archive yourself? Meanwhile the leakers account at Scribd has been slashed and all the files with it. Anyway - here is a Mediafire zip created yesterday of (allegedly) all files published so far.
IntegrityInitiative.zip
. Save it as long as it is available.
@ jackrabbit, I've heard other observers make the link with Kissinger's op-ed, but your demonstration is very convincing. William
Engdahl made the same call, Hillary's not a suitable player to pull off MAGA with masses of deplorables. Unfortunately for
Anglo-American
strategists, Trump with his linear cretinism lacks the necessary wherewithal to implement and execute a comprehensive geopolitical
strategy. Kissinger comes from another era, and probably cannot grasp how far devolution has taken American elites in the cesspit
of post modern hedonism.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 15, 2018 12:54:41 AM |
link
@V
It's illuminating to see this NATO-backed operation looking at a PR firm to edit Wikipedia because this brings to mind the
notorious "Philip Cross," which, for those not in the know, was uncovered by Craig Murray and others (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
as having edited the pages of prominent left wing people and Labour Party people. In Germany, Left Party Bundestag member Diether
Dehm has highlighted a similar figure in German language Wikipedia, "Feliks," targeting socialists in that country. The similarities
of both to the proposals made by the PR firm above are eerie.
Can't speak for the French version of Wikipedia but with the German edition it is as bad as anywhere else when it comes to
social and political issues, particularly so if geopolitics (the West, ME, Russia ..) is concerned.
Two people, a biologist and a journalist, independently investigated networks on a senior editor and admin level active within
WikipediaG. What they found is rather shocking. One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost
immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content
or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then.
These guys can also be found on Youtube: Gruppe42 (group42)
Unfortunately their main documentaries are only available in German language but there's some other content 'Geschichten aus Wikihausen'
- 'The Tales of Wikihausen' with English subtitles.
Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM
It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy.
Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects
- and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part.
The BBC won't taalk about it but when it is in the House of Commons they have to
Sole result of a search "Integrity Initiative" on the BBC news website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bv9zxj
(12/12 when then question was raised in the house of commons)
Posted by: Soft Asylum | Dec 15, 2018 4:36:27 AM | 39
Such people might be some of the worst examples of humans, but that doesn't mean they're trolls. In fact, plucking some
kind of motivations out of their psychopathic minds might be a good thing for the rest of us. If people such as them are posters
here, this would allow an opportunity to study them.
You feel you lack opportunities to study them? Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the cable news.
B: this info is astounding! Or perhaps not? Maybe the fact that the spooks are notoriously inept is what's astounding? I mean
you would think that what with all dweebs working for the state (eg GCHQ), they would be able to protect their own excreta? The earlier disinfo (it's a Russian plot etc) makes sense but it didn't work!
Old Microbiologist , Dec 15, 2018 7:09:31 AM |
link
Jay @15
Sorry, I didn't read any of this until this morning. Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very
expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure
etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for).
Asymmetrical wars against tiny nations without air support are
hard to justify spending Trillions of dollars forever. That dog just won't hunt after 18 years of a no-win war in Afghanistan
(or anywhere else). So, Russia and now just to make it even more critical, China are enemies that demand massive military buildups
of equipment that won't ever actually (hopefully) be put to use. This is to fight a two theater war against two nuclear superpowers.
Basically, it is insanity but it will make a few people very rich.
The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet.
When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is
nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India
as well).
If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping
was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor
minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former
Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was
trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to
Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put
into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column.
That is the over simplified view but it sums it up enough to explain what we are seeing. It is as always all about money. So,
Putin has resisted aggressively all US encroachments into the Russian sphere of influence. The sanctions actually help Russia.
A devalued ruble is great for oil exports which are only 12% of Russia's GDP. More self sufficiency is also a huge benefit. A
partnership with China ensures the US cannot ever achieve their goals of global domination. The US military has proven for the
past 70+ years they are incapable of any meaningful fighting and that the military is woefully incompetent. The ABM test results
even when cheating heavily are only roughly a 50% hit rate. That is against "normal" ballistic missiles. Russia's new systems
already circumvent this system by mid-flight course corrections.
The biggest problem is the neocon elites really believe all their own propaganda. That is very scary.
Jayc: you ask why Russia and specifically Putin? Cast your mind back to 1991 and the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin's coup and
the theft of billions of Russia's capital resources by Goldman Sachs et al. The Empire figured what was left of the former USSR
was a pushover and its vast natural resources, highly educated population, ripe for plucking and along comes the Tatar Putin,
a descendent of Genghis Khan! Whoops!
And only just in time. Then think about the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and later in 2003 and then Libya. The Russians stood by.
But Syria was a step too far and too near!
Jayc, it's Western, racist hubris. The Russkies are just a bunch of jumped up peasants (Hitler made the same mistake), so when
they asserted their right to resist, and it really started in 2015 with the Western financed 'revolution' against Assad, it came
as a real shock to the system to see that Russia actually did have real guns that fired and real jets and satellites to watch
it all. After all, it was those peasant Russians who went into space first (Duck agogo Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the genuine father
of space exploration).
It must have rocked the bastards back on their heels. So they hate Putin! He restored Russia's faith in itself and that is
simply not permissible! And do it with a military budget a small fraction of the Empire's and one that Putin CUT by 10% this year!
Wakey-wakey!
Okay, this is a vastly simplified explanation and I'm not going to deal with the internal contradictions of Russia, that's
for the Russians to do. But it seems that once more, the Russkies are saving our tired, sorry Western arses.
Bill
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 9:29:46 AM |
link
William Bowles @ 57
I commented at the Saker at the time of the first Ukrainian war that it looks like Mother Russia is being set up to defeat
fascism for the second time in 100 years. History may not exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme.
If I were the West I would tread very carefully, after the catastrophes of the 1990's the Russians are in no mood to roll over
for anyone. The West was surprised at the weapons and operational arts displayed in Syria, and that was just the conventional
stuff....
karlofi - Britain doesn't have swamps (environmental sort), but it does have lots of Bogs. And Bog is also another term for lavatory/toilet
- so one might describe Westminster, the City of London and the rest of the bourgeois British world as one Big Bog (if only someone
would flush it).
Well, I was excited about the supposed "lots on Skripal" and thought maybe there would be a smoking gun. Disappointed (mediafire
zip linked by b)! All I opened was the files with the word skripal in the name - nothing but ultra-boring newspeak from what seem
like spotty adolescents trying their best to feed their paymasters with the propaganda they want. The only one of any interest at all was the one reporting on skripal news coverage in Greece: the author was relatively normal,
and coverage in Greece was pretty neutral and sceptical of the UK propaganda.
There were only 100 documents in the zip which was supposed to be everything released so far (i.e. all three dumps).
Is there any evidence to confirm that all three dumps were done by the same person/people? I can't help wondering whether the
third dump might have been damage control from the Integrity Initiative themselves, to try to show that there is not much there.
As I said though, I didn't open anything except the files with skripal in the filename, so maybe there is something interesting
somewhere else. It may be that by specifically looking for skripal I failed to find any files with policy or analysis. All the
files I looked at seemed to be reports from the clusters in various countries (often addressed to Simon), or pure propaganda (spotty
teenagers) with no analysis.
ZH has a posting up about the Integrity Initiative and gives MoA a hat tip for being early onto the issue. This should insure that it won't be buried but I suspect it is time for another big shiny thing to appear to distract the masses
See also Namebase, the original collection of intelligence agents.
NameBase - Wikipedia
Founder Daniel Brandt began collecting clippings and citations pertaining to influential people and intelligence agents in the
1960s and especially in the 1970s after becoming a member of Students for a Democratic Society, an organization that opposed US
foreign policy.
[Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase
Posted by: William Bowles | Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 67
That piece sums it up well, especially NATO's increasingly aggressive posture. And how self-righteously stupid the US is being.
I think 70% might be optimistic. This situation is even more like 1914 than 1914 was, in that the reallywantingwar-to-bluster
ratio looks even worse. Meanwhile Trump, with his self-indulgent saber-rattling, is like a twitter-empowered Kaiser. Imagine that
back then.
Another commenter up above says this'll be Russia's second go-round with fascism. Yup, and they can send US/NATO where they
sent Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII.
Russ, I wish I could be that optimistic. Yes, madmen they may be but they're madmen with tactical nukes! And judging by another
End of Days scenario, they actually seem to be contemplating their use, gambling that the Russians wont call their bluff! More
like the Cuban Missile Crisis than Sarevevo. So which side will blink first?
And then of course, we have Global Heating, which the Empire figures will 'take care' of that surplus to requirement population,
whilst the 1% wait it out in their bunkers.
I'm glad I'm at the other end of my life, rather than the beginning.
" we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can
ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation,
the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it". -- Frederick Engels, from the introduction
to 'The Dialectics of Nature', 1883.
thanks everyone for giving a response to either my comment, or @jayc's initial comment on what started this russiaphobia... i
think many of the answers are relevant and there is no one answer...
i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much...
i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'..
as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site... the fact that it is
mentioned in this integrity initiative data dump shows just how mainstream and 'go to' in the world of propaganda it is viewed
by the intel services and anyone else trying to get in on some of the gov't money handouts for this type propaganda.. it would
be very cool if the wikipedia site made a statement saying we no longer need donations, as the intel services of the west have
been paying us to continue... at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue
to try to hide this when it is so apparent??
"at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when
it is so apparent??"
That's one of neoliberalism's refinements over classical fascism: Just as they figured out you don't need to kill dissenters
since no one listens to us anyway, so you also don't need formal Gleichshaltung under a de jure Geobbels ministry since
the MSM will happily "coordinate" itself and really doesn't need to be told what to do. They already know since theirs is the
same ideology.
Well, I'm only optimistic about that last part if they really can keep it to just shooting and not let the missiles fly.
On the other hand I'm not at all optimistic about that. Though even then I suspect it'll hit the West worst, precisely because
any such leveling is hardest on the most complex, most high maintenance, most just-in-time, least robust, least resilient, most
top-heavy Tower of Babel. That would be the US, Europe, and their dependencies.
from the link in b's post: As we see it, the main weakness in the Russians' disinformation campaign is their embrace of a quantity
- over quality and credibility - strategy as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople, their publication of a high volume
of "easily" identifiable propaganda and "fake news", and their heavy reliance on a few biased partisan sites, dubious social media
pages and uninspired trolls. Their stories are hard to believe,...
That sounds so much like a self-description of the US-UK MSM it is uncanny. (Bellingcat anyone? for ex.) Which, imho, shows
a complete lack of creativity, suppleness, or even a low-level semi-efficient approach to the general problem of information
/ narrative control. Because that is what it is all about: much of the discourse around it is waffle, which masquerades as
'new' as it invokes 'new info' double-speak: social circuits, fake news, distribution, deep learning, connectivity, targetting,
etc. (and other terms that are less readily comprehensible..)
Hah! I think it was Goebbels who said that the biggest mistake a propagandist can make is to believe his own propaganda and
I think your quote exemplifies it! But note it always has to contain an element of truth eg, 'as shown by their lack of credible
spokespeople'. Yes, the Russians, just like the North Koreans ain't very good at spin and thank goodness. It was a lesson that
Nixon never learned, the Emperor really is naked!
on the newest thread bjd make what i thought was an exceptional comment, which is easy enough to gloss over, but i think worth
repeating on this thread... here it is
"...why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- (aren't they) proudly proclaimed and advertised,
in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for..."
The fact that they aren't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between
every two lines that they put on paper."
I'm sure Bernard is going to ban me soon but before he does, you have to read this from Ron Unz on the Huawei debacle:
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly [Sheldon] Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest,
he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps
he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters
who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed
a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on
his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China. In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions
largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political
leverage.(my emph.
Averting World Conflict With China
The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
"MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to
be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In
short, 'MAGA'."
@28 Jackrabbit
I highlight these lines of your interesting post because, in the context of the Kissinger Op-Ed you refer to, they capture
an angle I had not considered and have to a degree nudged my thinking off what had been a steady course of assumptions and beliefs
relating to MAGA that go in the opposite direction from your hypothesis.
Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback
from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. It drew from, and fed on, the angst and diminishing prosperity of the
segment of the population that had been hit hardest by Globalization of the economy, to which Imperial adventures can be, and
after are, associated. The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions
in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war
effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was
a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy.
Doing it smarter and better than Obama did seems to the ticket to legitimacy for whatever Trump does in the foreign policy
realm. Replacing ISIS with actual American troops (while protecting a core capacity to revive ISIS if needed) is an example of
doing it differently from Obama, but the net result – with parts of Syria denied to the legitimate government – still supports
stark Imperialist, interventionists goals in a different way. The Russians and Syrians have free reign to attack ISIS, but do
not have the same liberty against American troops. The flip-side is that the American troops do not have the freedom of action
of ISIS to attack Syria. This creates a static line that serves the purpose of a partitionist goal. (ISIS is being allowed to
survive to enable an element of proxy action, for harassment purposes).
I find I can no longer dismiss Trump's appointments, in particular Pompeo and Bolton to key positions directing and shaping
US foreign policy, as some kind of 5-D chess move. They are signs that he is either a hostage President, or he is in on the act.
There is so much that remains unknown, but the clear outward indicators are that nothing really has changed when it comes to US
foreign policy objectives, only the methods and approaches are different.
Remember Obama's 'Change' meme? We don't understand that behind all these guys, and they are mostly men, stands industry and
its skills; advertising, marketing, statistics, psychology, pr, on and on it goes. And billions, billions, to spend! We are the
amateurs! Remember Saatchi & Saatchi's campaign to have Thatcher elected?
A new extremely lucrative 'industry' has sprung up.
a) to exploit hugely massive data sets (Facebook's trove and money earner..) and influence ppl => attitudes, behavior, votes,
etc. For ex. Cambridge Analytica. Much of this stuff is for now on the level of a scam. E.g. Trump was not elected due to any
type of manipulation or meddling by anyone, excepting those who financed him (other story, hard bucks and bribes - not! internet
detritus or subliminal messages) and imho the US MSM - TV specially - who care more about ratings and the money it brings than
anything else.
These efforts have got a lot of press, imho it is all smoke. If anyone has a good ex. of success ? (The model is built on about
200 years of advertising lore.)
b) Further upstream is to control the information that goes out / the audiences who are allowed to see whatever info, react
to it, communicate it - other. With the corollary of repressing dissident, unwelcome, contradictory, info, etc. Been going on
since say the Upper Paleolithic.
Today, what has to be managed is the extreme free-flow (internet): the only way this can be done is:
- to limit the channel, block info or some proportion of it, make the channel too expensive / unusable / forbid, repress
- to limit or corral the users (via propaganda / coercion / permission / certification / numbers / privilege / cost, etc.)
- to triage the information, the 'news', the narratives, the opinions, the appeals, etc. which represents the ultimate control
and is the choice made by the US-UK to mention only those.
Noirette, yuo want proof? Check out 'Programming of the President' by Roland Perry, Aurum Books, 1984. It's About Richard Wirthlin
and the Mormons. Can a computer be used to elect a president? Wel it elected Ronald Reagan. It's only a coupleof quid on Abe Books.
Essential reading IMHOP.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was
not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
3pm Friday.
In recent days we have discovered that Flynn was advised not to have counsel present during his FBI interview and that the
FBI is withholding the actual interview notes. The same FBI cabal that has dogged Trump - but AFAIK, Trump has said nothing about
the Flynn case.
Yet another reason to believe that Trump is not a "populist" savior but yet another agent of the establishment/Deep State.
Michael Flynn's a well known islamophobe who'd gladly defend zionist interests to the last american soldier. He'd fit right
in with Bolton on the NSC council. Flynn in his own words: "Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind
a religion," While campaigning for Trump in 2016: ''Islamism a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people that has to
be excised "
I wonder how he planned on excising the cancer ? Deploying more stormtroopers to the levant to fight Iran ?
As Trump assumed control of the executive in early 2017, it didn't take long for Flynn to push for direct military involvement
in Yemen and confrontation with Iran: "Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling
emboldened... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."
Michael Flynn was also a fellow at the foundation for defence of democracies a well known den of zionists and universal fascists
such as Michael Ledeen. In fact they both wrote a book together The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical
Islam and Its Allies, where we find such nuggets as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Putin has declared the United States (and NATO generally) to be a national security threat
to Russia, and "Death to America" is the official chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the Putinists and the radical Iranian
Muslims agree on the identity of their main enemy. Hence, one part of the answer is surely that their alliance is simply the logical
outgrowth of their hostility toward America.''
"The Russians and Iranians have more in common than a shared enemy. There is also a shared contempt for democracy and an agreement
-- by all members of the enemy alliance -- that dictatorship is a superior way to run a country, an empire, or a caliphate."
Flynn's angle was to exploit any potential fissure to pry Russia away from Iran and China. Presumbably after having dealt with
Iran and the middle Kingdom, the hegemon could then strike a final blow to defeat and contain an isolated Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626
The subtitle of this effusively admiring biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Grand Strategist, does not reflect its
true purpose. A more accurate one might be this: "Just as Smart as the Other Guy." The other guy, of course, is Henry Kissinger. The
implicit purpose of Justin Vaïsse's book is to argue that in his mastery of strategic thought and practice, Brzezinski ranks as Kissinger's
equal.
Notable quotes:
"... That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. ..."
"... After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places. ..."
"... From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy. ..."
"... Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence. ..."
"... This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the ..."
"... Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse." ..."
"... Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake." ..."
"... Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976. ..."
"... When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity. ..."
"... Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success. ..."
"... From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation. ..."
"... The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect. ..."
"... The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor. ..."
Underlying that purpose are at least two implicit assumptions. The first is that, when it comes to statecraft, grand strategy
actually exists, not simply as an aspiration but as a discrete and identifiable element. The second is that, in his writings and
contributions to US policy, Kissinger himself qualifies as a strategic virtuoso. For all sorts of reasons, we should treat both of
these assumptions with considerable skepticism.
That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case.
Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. His father was a diplomat
whose family accompanied him on postings to France, Germany, and eventually to Canada. The Nazi invasion of 1939, which extinguished
Polish independence, also effectively ended his father's diplomatic career. With war engulfing nearly all of Europe, Brzezinski would
not set foot on Polish soil again for nearly two decades.
Although the young Brzezinski quickly adapted to life in Canada, the well-being of Poles and Poland remained an abiding preoccupation.
After the war, he studied economics and political science at McGill University, focusing in particular on the Soviet Union, which
by then had replaced Germany as the power that dominated the country of his birth. Brzezinski was a brilliant student with a particular
interest in international affairs, a field increasingly centered on questions related to America's role in presiding over the postwar
global order.
After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university."
Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington.
For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished.
Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where
members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard,
was one of those places.
From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for
the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this
cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy.
A s a scholar and author of works intended for a general audience, Zbig, as he was widely known, was nothing if not prolific.
Churning out a steady stream of well-regarded books and essays, he demonstrated a particular knack for "summarizing things in a concise
and striking way."
Clarity took precedence over nuance.
And with his gift for stylish packaging -- crafting neologisms ("technetronic")
and high-sounding phrases ("Histrionics as History in Transition") -- his analyses had the appearance of novelty, even if they often
lacked real substance.
Whether writing for his fellow scholars or addressing a wider audience, Brzezinski had one big idea when it
came to Cold War strategy: He promoted the concept of "peaceful engagement" as a basis for US policy.
Convinced that the Soviet Union
and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead
to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence.
Yet little of the Brzezinski oeuvre has stood the test of time. The American canon of essential readings in international relations
and strategy, beginning with George Washington's farewell address and continuing on through works by John Quincy Adams, Alfred Thayer
Mahan, Hans Morgenthau, and a handful of others (the list is not especially long), does not include anything penned by Brzezinski.
Although Vaïsse, a senior official with the French foreign ministry, appears to have read and pondered just about every word his
subject wrote or uttered, he identifies nothing of Brzezinski's that qualifies as must-reading for today's aspiring strategist.
This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer,
rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets.
According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front
of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the Press . He knew how to self-promote.
Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence
of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua
non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse."
F rom the time Brzezinski left Harvard in 1960 to accept a tenured position at Columbia, he made it his mission to nurture and
facilitate that sophistication. For Zbig, New York offered a specific advantage over Cambridge: It provided a portal into elite political
circles. As it had for Kissinger, the then-still-influential Council on Foreign Relations provided a venue that enabled Brzezinski
to curry favor with the rich and powerful, and to establish his bona fides as a statesman to watch. Henry's patron was Nelson Rockefeller;
Zbig's was Nelson's brother David.
Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice
at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory
as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue
prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake."
Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new
foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from
expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved
a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the
presidency in 1976.
Zbig and Jimmy hit it off. Soon enough, Brzezinski signed on as the candidate's principal foreign-policy adviser. When Carter
won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of
global celebrity.
Zbig held this post throughout Carter's one-term presidency, from 1977 to 1981. It would be his first and last time in government.
After 1981, Brzezinski went back to writing, continued to opine, and was occasionally consulted by Carter's successors, both Democratic
and Republican. Yet despite having ascended to the rank of elder statesman, never again did Brzezinski occupy a position where he
could directly affect US policy.
Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of
master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less
than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success.
From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not
co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy,"
while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation.
In a characteristic display of self-assurance and bureaucratic shrewdness, as the new president took office, Brzezinski gave him
a 43-page briefing book prescribing basic administration policy. Under the overarching theme of "constructive global engagement,"
Brzezinski identified 10 specific goals. The first proposed to "create more active and solid cooperation with Europe and Japan,"
the 10th to "maintain a defense posture designed to dissuade the Soviet Union from committing hostile acts." In between were less-than-modest
aspirations to promote human rights, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, curb international arms sales, end apartheid in South Africa,
normalize Sino-American relations, terminate US control of the Panama Canal, and achieve an "overall solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
problem."
While Brzezinski's agenda was as bold as it was comprehensive, it nonetheless hewed to the Soviet-centric assumptions that had
formed the basis of US policy since the end of World War II. Zbig recognized that the world had changed considerably in the ensuing
years, but he also believed that any future changes would still occur in the context of a continuing Soviet-American rivalry. His
strategic perspective, therefore, did not include the possibility that the international order might center on something other than
the binaries imposed by the Cold War. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his
view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect.
Using Brzezinski's 10 policy objectives as a basis for evaluating his performance, Vaïsse gives the national-security adviser
high marks. "Few administrations have known so many tangible successes in only four years," he writes, citing the Panama Canal Treaty,
the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, and improved relations with China. Yet while Panama remains an underappreciated achievement,
the other two qualify as ambiguous at best. The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much
of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And
the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's
emergence as a peer competitor.
More troubling still was Brzezinski's failure to anticipate or to grasp the implications of the two developments that all but
doomed the Carter presidency: the 1978 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Vaïsse does his best to
cast a positive light on Brzezinski's role in these twin embarrassments. But there's no way around it: Brzezinski misread both --
with consequences that still haunt us today.
The Iranian Revolution, which Brzezinski sought to forestall by instigating a military coup in Tehran, offered a warning against
imagining that Washington could shape events in the Islamic world. Brzezinski missed that warning entirely, although he would by
no means be the last US official to do so. As for the Kremlin's plunge into Afghanistan, widely interpreted as evidence of the Soviet
Union's naked aggression, it actually testified to the weakness and fragility of the Soviet empire, already in an advanced state
of decay. Again, Brzezinski -- along with many other observers -- misread the issue. When clarity of vision was most needed, he failed
to provide it.
Together, these two developments ought to have induced a wily strategist to reassess the premises of US policy. Instead, they
resulted in decisions to deepen -- and to overtly militarize -- US involvement in and around the Persian Gulf. While this commitment
is commonly referred to as the Carter Doctrine, Vaïsse insists that it "was really a Brzezinski doctrine."
Regardless of who gets the credit, the militarization of US policy across what Brzezinski termed an "arc of crisis" encompassing
much of the Islamic world laid the basis for a series of wars and upheavals that continue to this day. If, as national-security adviser,
Brzezinski wielded as much influence as Vaïsse contends, then this too forms part of his legacy. When it mattered most, the master
strategist failed to understand the implications of the crisis that occurred on his watch.
The most glaring problem anyone faces in trying to assert Brzezinski's mastery of world affairs, however, rests not in Iran or
Afghanistan, but in how the Cold War came to an end. Indeed, Brzezinski viewed it as essentially endless. As late as 1987, just two
years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was still insisting that "the American-Soviet conflict is an historical rivalry that
will endure for as long as we live."
B rzezinski was certainly smart, flexible, and pragmatic, but he was also a prisoner of the Cold War paradigm. So too were virtually
all other members of the foreign-policy establishment of his day. Indeed, subscribing to that paradigm was a prerequisite of membership.
Yet this adherence amounted to donning a pair of strategic blinders: It meant seeing only those things that it was convenient to
see.
Which brings us back to Zbig's last tweet, with its paean to American leadership as the sine qua non of global stability. The
tweet neatly captures the mind-set that the foreign-policy establishment has embraced with something like unanimity since the Cold
War surprised that establishment by coming to an end. This mind-set gets expressed in myriad ways in a thousand speeches and op-eds:
The United States must lead. There is no alternative; history itself summons the country to do so. Should it fail in that responsibility,
darkness will cover the earth.
This is why Trump so infuriates the foreign-policy elite: He appears oblivious to the providential call that others in Washington
take to be self-evident. Yet adhering to this post–Cold War paradigm is also the equivalent of donning blinders. Whatever the issue
-- especially when the issue is ourselves -- it means seeing only those things that we find it convenient to see.
The post–Cold War paradigm of American moral and political hegemony prevents us from appreciating the way that the world is actually
changing -- rapidly, radically, and right before our very eyes. Today, with the planet continuing to heat up, the nexus of global
geopolitics shifting eastward, and Americans pondering security threats for which our pricey and far-flung military establishment
is all but useless, the art of strategy as practiced by members of Brzezinski's generation has become irrelevant. So too has Zbig
himself.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
Vesti News
Published on 26 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
On Monday, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office announced the initiation of a new criminal case against William Browder,
an international schemer and fraudster. Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia.
For many years, Browder has been making frantic efforts to avoid going to Russian prison.
Well, lucky for him Interpol can't come after him, now that he almost singlehandedly
prevented a Russian from becoming Director. He's only Assistant Director, so he must be
powerless.
There; you see? The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder. If you want to rub
someone out, don't use a distinctive nerve agent that everyone will know came from Russia,
you numbskulls. Try to make it something undetectable, but if you can't manage that, at least
make it something so general it might have come from anywhere. Then immediately announce that
Browder did it.
This two years old article can be written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... "Aiming to calm European fears about US-Russia ties, Vice President Mike Pence told world leaders Saturday that the United
States will stand firm against Moscow while also seeking avenues for cooperation." ..."
Pence told a room full of Washington lapdogs that the United States would "continue to hold Russia accountable". Then Lavrov
went up to the podium and straightened him out. Rudy Panko Sun, Feb
19, 2017 | 400 words 38,161
417 YOLO Lavrov
"Aiming to calm European fears about US-Russia ties, Vice President Mike Pence told world leaders Saturday that the United
States will stand firm against Moscow while also seeking avenues for cooperation."
This is the opening line
to CNN's report on the predictable saber-rattling that took place at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
Lavrov is our spirit animal
Pence also told the audience that Washington remained "unwavering" in its commitment to NATO as it faced a "more assertive Russia."
Shortly after Pence had finished his war liturgy, Russia's Foreign Minister took to the podium.
Lavrov said that the time when the West called the shots was over and, dismissing NATO as a relic of the Cold War, added: "I
hope that (the world) will choose a democratic world order -- a post-West one -- in which each country is defined by its sovereignty."
Lavrov said Moscow wanted to build relations with Washington which would be "pragmatic with mutual respect and acknowledgement
of our responsibility for global stability."
Lavrov is a career diplomat and a true gentleman. But we've noticed a subtle change in his approach to U.S. bullshittery over
the last two years. He rarely dances around issues anymore. Sure, he still refers to Washington as "our western friends" or "our
American colleagues". But he doesn't hold back after that.
The crisis in Ukraine made it clear that Washington wanted blood. But the U.S.-led crimes against the people of Syria is what
made Russia realize that they are not dealing with normal, reasonable people. Washington is a cabal of psychopaths.
The war in Syria has also ushered in a new era: We are witnessing a seismic shift in how international relations are conducted.
Russia and Iran just proved that fighting the bully works. And other countries have taken notice.
Lavrov's comments are more than just an invitation to all nations to join Russia in the creation of a new world order based on
state sovereignty and international consensus.
He was also issuing a warning to Washington: Pack your bags. It's over.
Well, that would be the brain-dead, full of shit, Fox News/CNN version of events.
The USA has made it clear that unless Russia allows the full raping of its economy and submits to second rate lapdog status
(are you listening Germany?) that they will continue to encroach and threaten.
Crimea would never have happened had it not been for the US seeded, illegal coup.
The USA is the nation responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths over the past 15+ years, not Russia.
AND remember that whatever the purpose of overthrowing or even merely meddling inside countries - really -- as many as there
are american embassies...
the consequences -- the repercussions of these -- result in BILLIONS in misery, unnecessary suffering and difficulty -- once
the effects of american meddling , operations, influence, trouble-making are accounted for.
take the economy alone...an american company ....without all the bombings obviousness --
IF AN american mining company goes to a country and ''obtains'' bending the rules so the company can mine all they want --
hire private security or EVEN a corrupt government's ARMY or rogue generals to ''provide security" against peasants or workers
who complain they are not being paid well , their health disregarded, the environment and village they live in polluted -- and
the company takes all the profits OUT --
the consequences of that american company's activities harms far more, far longer and deeper - you count that along with all
other activities and behavior the USA commits across the world wherever there is an american embassy, representative, organization
working for ''american interests''
and what do we get in TOTAL if a proper accounting were made?
BILLIONS OF LIVES and UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT , FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE HERITAGE OF THEIR COUNTRIES ACROSS THE
WORLD, ACROSS GENERATIONS RUINED.
from effects in poverty, wealth gaps, misery, descent by populations in poverty into criminality, destruction of farm and natural
lands, social cohesion disturbed...divisions created...death , terrorism, and an endless list of MISERY brought by america's ''INSTITUTIONS".
If America don't respect it's own indigenous people, how can they do it with the rest of the world?!?!?
America is leading the world!! To it's destruction....
What a whitewash.
Blankets infected with smallpox ...
Massacres ...
Alcohol ...
Broke every treaty ...
The indigenous Americans were the subjects of the greatest genocide the world has known. We can only estimate the numbers, but
they were huge.
They were a majestic and beautiful people. No doubt they had tribal indifferences, but they were not genocidal.
Shame on you.
You are right. From the point of view of Russia, the situation looks like this: NATO forces located on our borders are not
a big threatening force.
Dangerous other:
First: the Americans gave the nuclear weapons at the disposal of its partners in NATO. The Polish, Danish and other aircraft
can fly with nuclear bombs along our borders.
Second: latest launchers for cruise missiles are close to our border. This means that the flight time to, for example Saint
Petersburg, becoming about 3 minutes.
That is, in case of any error, accidental launch due to a technical fault no one have time for any questions. No time for a phone
call or any other communication, anti-missile system Russia will work automatically.
That is, the previous policy and NATO leaders created a situation which is extremely dangerous in itself. No matter how hostile
their intentions.
Yes very much so, I hate it. No need for this insanity. Saw pictures of NATO troops taking group shots right on Russias boarder.
And all it takes is one tiny mistake, Americans are famous for making mistakes , thats how they justify killing people. Ever watch
Reilly interview Trump? Could smack that bloating neocon oreilly. Europeans don't get it , if this goes bad it will get real bloody
for them as well, they have no shield of protection, when are they going to finally wake up n realize NATO is using them n their
land to launch attacks on Russia, so stupid
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
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.
No, you're right; Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing
firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management. I don't know if the 'Duncan' is
still part of the outfit, but Firestone Duncan was headed by Jamison Firestone. He's an
American lawyer, born in Los Angeles and a member of the New York state bar.
I and others have hazarded a guess that Magnitsky was persistently referred to as a lawyer
because testimony between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by attorney-client
privilege; thus, much of what the Russian state might want to know from Magnitsky might fall
under this protection. But of course Russia would not be fooled into thinking he was a lawyer
– the device was likely just for western consumption, so Browder could scream that
Russia was suborning testimony illegally from Magnitsky.
Browder, however, had no real reason to believe Magnitsky was a lawyer, as he admitted
when questioned under oath.
" In a 2015 deposition regarding Prevezon, Browder again described Magnitsky as his
lawyer. He was quickly questioned by opposing counsel. This time, Browder was under oath
(page 25):
Q: Mr. Magnitsky is an attorney; you think that's accurate?
BROWDER: He was my attorney.
Q: I see. And he had a law degree in Russia?
BROWDER: I'm not aware that he did.
Q: I see. And he went to law school?
BROWDER: No.
Magnitsky had been granted power of attorney on several occasions, but he was not a
lawyer. As Browder would detail in his deposition, when there was a 2002 challenge regarding
tax payments, Magnitsky represented Hermitage in court."
That's a very useful source, incidentally; it discusses that Magnitsky never once
mentioned in his testimony the tax fraud which the Russian government supposedly perpetrated
to steal millions, and Hermitage did not lose anything thereby; the Russian treasury absorbed
the loss. And the fraud was discovered by testimony delivered by Rimma Starova, who worked
for one of the shell companies accused. But Magnitsky is regularly and stubbornly credited
with having discovered the theft, and his alleged stubborn investigation is in turn credited
with his arrest, to get him out of the way.
Browder agreed to be deposed in 2015, in an action he initiated against Prevezon, which
firm he accused of using the profits from the alleged tax rebate scheme to purchase New York
real estate. Prevezon was represented in this action by Natalia Veselnitskaya. I'm sure you
will recognize her name.
Here are a couple of my old posts, one of them an excellent one by kovane which drew on
some Russian sources and which demonstrated that Browder – in collusion with Magnitsky
– claimed tax deductions for hiring handicapped employees who either did not perform
the jobs for which they had been hired or did no work at all. Magnitsky signed their
employment books, and Browder himself signed off on the tax deduction application. They
pertain directly to the Magnitsky deception and to Browder's slippery background.
"... Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. ..."
"... Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were. ..."
People should remember, when international institutions continue to falter and crumble after
all the decades of effort to build them, that they were doing what makes Michael McFaul
happy. I hope that's enough.
Oh well, whatever tickles these pathetic people's fantasies Michael McFawl going
buuuuk-buk-buk and Bill Brawder ('cos he's full of electrolytes) must not have very much to
do these days except think about what Vladimir Putin does every early morning.
Realistically, this IS a tactical defeat for Russia. The votes had already been counted, and
Prokopchuk was pretty much a shoo-in. Then the U.S. launched a campaign to stop this, and
must have intimidated a lot of the countries into changing their vote.
Russophiles should just admit that it was a tactical defeat, shrug it off, and continue
the war Because it IS a war. One battle lost Realistically.
As I keep saying, it is a tactical defeat for international institutions. They are exposed as
merely fronts for American influence, with no genuine objectivity. Prokopchuk is already a
Deputy Head of Interpol, and will remain one. Browder was simply exercising self-preservation
disguised as the usual progressive activism, but when people who were in a position to cast
votes see that they are being personally thanked by Michael Mcfaul, then by God any one of
them who does not realize he or she has been had is thicker than most people are who are
allowed out unsupervised.
Russia – and Putin – was never going to 'run' Interpol; in fact, if Prokopchuk
had won, the USA would be tying itself in knots trying to impede every Interpol investigation
after that, just to spite Russia. Washington simply did not want a Russian to win, and it was
successful in scaring enough people to prevent it from happening. But Prokopchuk hasn't gone
away, and will still be as influential as he was before. Nothing has really changed very much
at Interpol, but the USA just publicly turned on a huge influence campaign to change the
decision. Does that mean Interpol is just another political western tool? It surely does. Who
can't see that now? Anyone?
Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal
Khodorkovsky. They were the two 'high-profile dissidents' who were cited in a
flood-the-English-speaking newspapers campaign that said Putin was about to get control of
Interpol. They pointed out that the Nazis had control over it in the 1930's, but apparently
that was not as bad as Putin running it. Of course they managed to panic enough voters that
the Russian who had been the favourite was repudiated. But the whole thing is just too
childish for words, because the net effect is to showcase how political international
institutions have become, and undermine confidence in them.
Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for
short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall
apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So
Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were.
Prosecutor General: Magnitsky chemically poisoned as a diversion on Browder's
orders
You dirty Russian rats can't pin that goddam rap on me!!!
A new criminal case has been opened in the Russian Federation against William
Browder, founder of the Hermitage Capital Foundation, international financial speculator,
lobbyist for anti-Russian sanctions and a sponsor of a significant part of the Russian
liberal opposition.
Details revealed at a special briefing organized by the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Russian Federation.
Browder has been accused of creating a criminal organization (part 1 of article 210 of
the criminal code), which had been operating since 1999, which was formed for "committing
serious economic crimes on Russian territory and that of other countries". Nikolay Atmon'ev,
advisor to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, said that companies in Cyprus,
Latvia and Switzerland had ben established in Browder's interests and had cashed and
laundered hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Office of the Prosecutor General believes it "very likely" that the auditor Sergei
Magnitsky and several other of his accomplices were killed on Browder's direct orders because
they were undesirable witnesses: "Initially, the deaths of Gasanov, Kurochkin and Magnitsky
were considered to have been through natural causes, because of sicknesses that they had; the
death of Korobyeinikov seemed to have been accidental. However, further data was obtained,
indicating the violent nature of the deaths of these persons". The Investigative Committee
opened a murder inquiry into Browder's business partners Oktai Gasanov, Valeriy Kurochkin and
Sergei Korobyenikov. Browder is a suspect as regards the elimination of financier Alexander
Perepelichny, who died in 2012 in the British town of Weybridge (in the Russian immigrant's
stomach were found traces of Asian poisonous plant Gelsemium elegans). According to Atmen'ev,
the Prosecutor's office sent to the Investigative Committee notification of its decision that
an inquiry be opened as regards making a criminal case against Browder because of the
suspicion that he had been involved in the murder of Perepelichny. As for Magnitsky, who died
in 2009 at the hospital of the "Matrosskaya Tishina" remand centre, the Office of the
Prosecutor General believes that he was poisoned "as a diversion and by a chemical substance
consisting of aluminium compounds", which brought about the development of his cardio-hepatic
failure. "What Browder was especially interested in was that Sergei Magnitsky die so as to
avoid his being exposed", said Atmon'ev.
"Amongst the chemicals that pose a hidden threat to humans, there is a group of toxic
aluminium compounds. In Russia, there has not been an investigation targeted at these
substances. Detailed analysis of scientific information shows that for several decades
toxicological studies of aluminium compounds have been carried out previously and there
continues exclusive research into them by organizations in the the United States, France and
Italy. There has been studied particularly closely the acute and chronic toxicity of a number
of hazardous aluminium compounds that are ingested orally or inhaled and their effects on the
human body Analysis of substances obtained from the bodies of Kurochkin, Korobyenikov,
Gasanov and Magnitsky has led to the conclusion that the deceased persons had signs of
chronic poisoning with a toxic water-soluble aluminium compound that had been administered
orally", said a representative of the Office of the Russian Prosecutor, Mikhail
Alexandrov.
In the very near future, the Russian Federation will announce that Browder is on the
international wanted list under the UN Convention against transnational crime. "There is the
possibility of extradition provided for in the Convention, even in cases when between the
countries that decide the issue of extradition,there is no bilateral extradition Treaty",
said Atmon'ev.
They gotta be joking! Trust me! I'm as straight as they come!
RT keeps stating that Magnitsky was employed by Browder. I'm pretty sure he wasn't. He was
employed by an audit company, Firestone Duncan, that advised Browder in his shady,
tax-dodging operations.
Browder has always tried to make out that he was a pal of Magnitsky and how he grieved for
his fate.
Browder not once visited his "friend" Magnitsky when he was held on remand.
At least they have stopped calling Magnitsky a "lawyer".
Browder persisently called him a lawyer, though, in numerous interviews, when he must have
known damned well he was no such thing.
You'd think the British would have tried to sort out the taxation implications of Markly
Meg's marriage to Prince Harry BEFORE they got married. It's not as if this is the first time
someone in the British political establishment has been hit with this issue of being a US
citizen and therefore liable to pay tax to the IRS on income earned outside the US as well as
within the country.
Well, she could always do what Mr. Capitalism Bill Browder did, and renounce her American
citizenship. The US government has demonstrated on more than one occasion that, in his case,
it does not hold that against him although he plainly did it for tax reasons.
" Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that
renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service
obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to
avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the
future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations,
including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as
United States citizens abroad "
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
They still get you even when you're no longer an American citizen.
Oh, bullshit. If a former American like, say, Bill Browder, murders somebody in England, the
USA is going to get nowhere demanding his extradition to be tried as a previous American
citizen for murder. What would be the use of renouncing one's citizenship as an American if
all American rules still apply to you?
I can see the US authorities going after you if you renounced your citizenship just to
escape child support or alimony, providing you have a job in your new country. But I don't
see how the USA could just access your bank account – in another country – and
drain off payments; doesn't sovereignty count for anything?
Presumably, as well, the USA is not going to get into a pissing contest with the British
Royal Family over what it claims as its share of Markle's newfound wealth.
Buffoon Boris of Bullingdon Club notoriety and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
risability got whacked with a US tax bill because he too was a US citizen. He huffed and
puffed and said he would not pay and would renounce his being one of the Exceptional Nation.
In the end, he coughed up what he owed, but he still renounced his US citizenship.
I assume the passage I quoted is basically saying that renouncing US citizenship will not
automatically wipe out previous or outstanding unpaid tax liabilities, crimes committed in
the past in territories under US jurisdiction or future crimes in the same territories. So
even if the Markly One does renounce US citizenship, any income she receives individually or
jointly with her husband, including gifts, can still be subjected to taxation if she still
owes unpaid tax to the authorities.
Then that's probably reasonable – the United States could recover income from her up to
the amount she has outstanding in US taxes. Unless she has one of those
invisible-but-building student loans, such a sum would probably not amount to much. But the
way the law is worded suggests US citizenship is far more a curse than a gift, in that
renouncing it frees you from none of the responsibilities. It implies that American law
follows you around like a bridal train.
As part of their hissy fit over a Russian in charge of Interpol (a Russian whose brother is a
Ukrainian diplomat lol), Senators wants it so anyone whose name is put on a red notice by
Russia cannot be denied entry or asylum.
Reminds me of when Castro sent all the trash from Cuba to the United States once they made
a similar law.
That'd be awesome. Get the bunting and the confetti ready at O'Hare for the arrival of a
couple of hundred Pavlenskys, who will promptly nail their sacks to the parking lot of the 35
East Wacker Building, a Chicago landmark. Most appropriate. I think you will agree.
Just this morning (Monday 19 Nov) the Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case
against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his
gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang. It is
alleged that Browder used military-level "diversionary chemical substances" [whatever that
is] mixed to aluminium, to form the poison.
Browder denies the charges, and also points the finger at Major-General Alexander
Prokopchuk of the Russian Federation police. Prokopchuk is in the running to become head of
Interpol. Which, if he does, he said he will pursue Bill Browder to the ends of the earth,
and nowhere on this planet will it be safe for him any more.
Which is why Browder is worried about Prokopchuk's nomination.
Now we know why the UK staged the Skripal farce. It is a redirection attempt to make Browder
look like a victim. The fallout of Browder being convicted of using chemical weapons from
criminal purposes would make NATzO look bad since NATzO invested itself in his "victimhood"
and elevated the corrupt accountant Magnitsky into a human rights martyr saint.
I imagine they mean the poison was mixed with other substances to conceal the presence of the
poison itself, since he would certainly be autopsied if he died. And poisoning would
certainly explain his very sudden and rapid turn for the worse. But Browder never visited him
– neither did anyone from Hermitage Capital Management or Firestone Duncan, to the best
of my knowledge. Browder's story was always that Magnitsky was the sole employee left behind,
because he – Browder – had pulled everyone else out, for their safety. Who
administered the poison? And in what circumstances – Browder's story also was that
Magnitsky died from beatings and neglect, in that the prison authorities would not let anyone
bring him the medicine he needed for a known condition. In medicine would be the perfect way
to deliver a poison, but Browder's story was that he was denied medicine, and he'd surely be
suspicious of anything else, wouldn't he? Here, Sergey; brought you a nice meat pie, old man.
quite apart from the likelihood that prison authorities would not let non-family visitors
give him any food, since he was the prosecution's star witness.
Of all the fuckers who simply make up scurrilous crap about Russia and Russians, Browder
is the one I'd most like to see them get. My dream is that he would go to prison in Russia,
but we mustn't be greedy, and I think we all know that will never happen.
Could aluminium phosphide have been put into Magnitsky's cell in the form of tablets or
pellets mixed with water, supposedly to get rid of an insect or rat infestation?
Inhaling the compound is as dangerous as consuming it and inhalation could have caused his
fatal heart attack. Water would be an ideal way to transport the poison especially if it is
colourless in that medium.
Come to think of it, my earlier comment was unnecessarily complicated: the poison, if it had
been aluminium phosphide, only had to be given to Magnitsky in a glass of water when he got
thirsty.
Don't need exotic "made only in Russia" chemicals. AlP is not going to leave a trail back to
its source. And both Al and P are found in the body so forensic identification is not
trivial.
Anything is possible, but visitors to the state's star witness would be viewed with the
greatest suspicion if they were not family, you would think, as doubtless the state would
have stressed what a valuable prisoner he potentially was. I would imagine they would be
subjected to a pretty thorough scan and search. And there would be a record of all visits and
visitors. Anyone who was Russian and still living in Russia would doubtless be investigated.
I think there's about three years left before the rest of the terms expire for all the judges Russia elected (including the one
from Russia).
I have no idea if the government actually values the ECHR, but they have a free excuse to leave if they desire. This is a court
with elected judges, and Russia's participation in it is already cut off.
I think Russia remains a participant in international institutions, despite how it is treated, in the hope that the current madness
will pass and things will go back to some approximation of the way they were instead of this constant agitation for war. It's
hard to walk away from organizations which took decades if not centuries to build, because once the door closes on you, you won't
be asked back. The west recognizes its mistake in ever letting Russia participate on an equal basis, and if it could ever get
rid of the Russian permanent-member UN veto, Washington at least would be over the moon with pleasure. The Russian veto has prevented
several opportunities for the USA to rampage and smash and regime-change as it loves to do, and once that restriction was gone
it could re-order the world to its heart's content. If Russia left voluntarily, the most it would ever be granted again would
be observer status.
Norway and Finland have accused Russia of causing GPS malfunction that ocurred during the latest NATO arsing around close to Russian
frontiers.
No evidence given, mind.
"Norway has determined that Russia was responsible for jamming GPS signals in the Kola Peninsula" said a Nato spokesman.
Then the Norwegian Ministry of Defence stated that had traced the source of jamming that ocurred in Norway and Finnish Lapland
"to a Russian military base on the Kola Peninsula".
So then the Finnish prime minister joined in with the condemnation, whilst at the same time conceding that the Norwegian authorities
were unlikely to present any proof, saying that there still was "every reason to trust them",
It's that old "very likely" mantra again! Loud accusations and nothing to back up the accusations.
I wonder when former Secretary of State for the USA Kerry is going to present evidence that he uneqivocally stated the US had
as regards the persons who were responsible for downing MH-17.
He started shouting his mouth off about this before the bodies of those who died as a result of that tragedy were even stiff.
Quite a bit like that stranded Russian secret submarine in Swedish waters, which was sending distress signals that the Swedes
or somebody in that neck of the woods was picking up. A great burst of alarms and outcries, no proof, nothing shown to the public,
silence and then forgetting. It'll be the same this time; it has become fashionable in western circles to accuse Russia of all
manner of aggression, and brings approval from Washington and Brussels. Hopefully Russia has a longer memory.
I wonder if they will tie the collision of the Norwegian frigate with the tanker to GPS jamming – they didn't know where they
were, poor dears. But warships use a gyro to navigate, not GPS. Still, fortune favours the bold.
The frigate Helge Ingstad and the oil tanker Sola collided near Bergen which, if I am not mistaken, has to be at least 2,300 km
away from the Kola Peninsula and any Russian military bases there.
Yes; Russian GPS jamming in this incident is beyond unlikely. I'm just being sarcastic. Like I said, it has become fashionable
to blame Russia for everything bad that happens, no matter how preposterous the case.
There's a captain who is all finished in the navy, even if he/she doesn't go to jail for incompetence. Responsibility stops
with the Captain no matter what happens because he is responsible overall for everything that happens in his ship, but in a congested
waterway with limited maneuverability, he would be on the bridge and in command. There will be no sloughing it off on a junior
officer. And the part about turning on their AIS after the collision just makes it look like they were trying to cover up. What
a disaster.
Incidentally, if anyone was wondering why so little has been mentioned about the crew and suspected some political dimension
– congratulations. Four of five navigators aboard Helge Ingstad were women, and the Norwegian Armed Forces had barely gotten done
championing her as a stake in the heart of the patriarchy. Jeez; we just can't get away from it, can we?
In the Norwegian magazine, Armed Forces Forum No. 2 in 2017 it was stated that "Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM
Helge Ingstad are women".
"It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which
I look at as positive," Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according
to Defense Forum. In yet another politically correct nod, the text notes that: "The Navy receives a much higher number of women
after general conscription duty was introduced. Therefore, more women are also more motivated for further career opportunities
in the Armed Forces."
"There has always been a perception that the Armed Forces are characterized by a very masculine environment, and in many
ways it is true. It is mostly men in the Armed Forces, but it is important for me to show that you do not have to be 'one of the
guys' to assume a role in the Armed Forces. Finding one's place should not be at the expense of being a woman," said Ophus.
When more women are able to work together, it becomes easier to discover and to create a more balanced defense, the Armed
Forces Forum opined. "It is important that the integration of women should work in every aspect: from officers and constables,
to people," Ophus said, adding: "The most important thing for me is that my job makes sense because you work for something bigger
than yourself."
In the same magazine where the Norwegians boast about gender equality in their Navy, they also explained that they are looking
into every department of their Armed Forces to apply the same formula.
Gender would have had nothing to do with this accident; a woman can fuck up just as easily as a man and no more. But all that
bunk about it being 'important to be a woman, and not acting like one of the guys to find one's place aboard' is just that – bunk.
On board you are just a sailor and you have a job to do that does not require you to showcase your womanhood. Similarly, 'having
a lot of women on board' is no more 'advantageous' than having a lot of men. All that politically-correct bullshit looks very
unfortunate now.
The ship was not insured – I'm pretty sure you cannot get coverage for a warship, and lots of personal insurance policies have
a clause which states that if you die as a result of combat action in war you are not covered, something a lot of people do not
know – and will be a total loss. That loss will equal Norway's entire annual defense budget, according to this source. If you
watch the maritime center's radar recording, Helge Ingstad displayed no AIS identifier and was doing more than 17 knots just before
the collision. She appeared to intend to cross the tanker's bow, but if that was the intent it was beyond stupid because that
course would have taken her into the center of the passage where several other ships were on similar opposing courses.
It is important to note that input from the navigator in home waters would normally not be required, and navigating such a
well-traveled waterway would be an exercise in chart-reading and radar-picture management which would fall to the Officer of the
Watch regardless whether he/she is a navigator. But the Captain would normally be on the bridge when other marine traffic was
expected in close proximity, because mistakes happen.
"Traditional political blindness": Russia has responded to the adoption of the UN resolution on the Crimea
In the Crimea, the adoption of the UN resolution on alleged human rights violations on the peninsula has been condemned. In
the state Duma and the Federation Council, representatives of the region and local legislators are confident that the Ukraine,
which presented this document to be voted on, is trying to present to the world the best image of itself that it can,whilst thos
countries that support the position that the Ukraine has taken are displaying "political blindness". RT interlocutors stressed
that after the reunification with Russia, there had been created all the conditions for inhabitants of the peninsula regardless
of their ethnic or religious affiliation. The Commissioner for human rights in the republic, Lyudmila Lubina, had invited UN representatives
to visit the Crimea. They were convinced of the absence of violations. An earlier positive assessment of the situation in the
region had been given by independent delegations from the United States, Germany, Italy and other countries.
The Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which is responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural issues, adopted
a resolution proposed by the Ukraine that condemns alleged violations of human rights on Crimea territory.
67 countries voted in support of the document, 26 against: 82 countries abstained. The number of countries that adhere to neutrality
in this matter has increased: in the year 2017 in a similar situation, 76 countries abstained and in 2016 -- 77.
The text of the resolution was made in Kiev. It reported on the "illegal establishment of Russian Federation laws, jurisdiction
and administration" in the region. According to the authors of the document, on the peninsula there is "increased pressure on
communities of religious minorities, including frequent police raids, threats and harassment against supporters of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and Protestant churches, mosques and Muslim religious schools, the Greek Catholics, the
Roman Catholics and "Jehovah's Witnesses", and the "groundless prosecution of dozens of peaceful Muslims for their alleged affiliation
to the Islamic organizations" was condemned
"Uncompromising war with Russia"
Deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN, Gennady Kuzmin, commented on the content of the resolution, noting
the aggressiveness of the text presented by the Ukraine.
"The authors have tried hard to present the situation in the Crimea as a kind of armed conflict, using terms like "annexation",
and occupation". According to this terminology, the Ukraine for four years has been waging an uncompromising war against Russia.
But Russia has simply been part of this war: no one is going to quarrel with the Ukrainian people, who have the same blood ties.
To punish the population of the Crimea for its choice in favouring Russia will not succeed", he stressed.
The Russian diplomat also pointed out that the referendum on the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was carried out
strictly in accordance with international law.The inhabitants of the peninsula voted openly, expressing their desire "to live
without the new Ukrainian idol: Bandera, Shukhevych and other Nazi collaborators" and to defend their right to education in and
to speak freely in their native language: Russian, Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar.
"No oppression. None"
In the Crimea there is outrage over the text of the resolution. Representatives of the region in the Federation Council
and the state Duma emphasize that the situation on the peninsula does not correspond to what is set out in the document.
"There is neither oppression of religious minorities nor raids, arrests and persecution as regards freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. Moreover, all conditions have been created to meet the needs of all religious communities", said Sergey Tsekov,
a member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs of the Republic of the Crimea in an interview with RT
The violations that were noted in the UN resolution have been created by the Ukraine, the "illusion of non-existent human
rights abuses in the Crimea", said Vice-Premier of the Crimean government, Dmitry Polonsky.
"That political blindness has become a tradition for nearly 70 states (those that voted for the resolution. -- RT) does
not surprise anyone. This disease does not allow them to see the amazing extent of human rights violations in the Ukraine, which
already for several years has been waging war against its own people on the territory of the Donbass", said the Crimean government
representative.
Sadly, international institutions don't really matter any more, since the ridiculous obeisance you have to show to gain their
approval amounts to a complete abrogation of sovereignty. In this the USA has managed its greatest success in Ukraine; Washington
chafes under the burden of upholding all the regulations it helped write in order to place hobbles on others, not itself, and
now finds it has little use for international law or international regulation. So it has created the conditions for its irrelevance.
Countries that pay their political figures high salaries to sit in the UN and bleat and blather are wasting their money; they
should just remove their representatives and bring them home, and teach them some useful trade.
Human rights evaluation by a popularity vote. What a joke! Give us real cases of abuse and not claims by Tatar clowns based outside
Crimea. All of the sudden Crimean Tatars are the most precious minority in the world. They have to be given everything they demand
or it is oppression. How come Canada's native population gets to rot on reservation ghettos and nobody cares? America ripped up
the last of the substantial treaties it had with the aboriginals during the 1960s and expropriated their lands. Last time I checked
2014 is not 1930 and nobody is in a rush to give the US aboriginals back their lands.
All of it is designed to irritate Russia, with a secondary function of reassuring Ukraine that the west is in its corner. That's
pretty good value for money, when you think about it – the Ukies will go on struggling for the price of a pat on the head, and
the west does not have to actually buy their stuff or support them beyond a couple of billion in emergency aid once a year or
so. But the whole effort is gaining next to no traction at all; I can't even remember the last time I saw Mustafa Dzemilev mugging
with the adults, looking like a little wrinkled kid dressed in his dad's clothes. Absent urgent entreaties from the Crimeans themselves,
it all just looks like harassment. The west just has to do something for the Two Minutes Hate.
"... "He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why Browder is ready to stage any provocation," ..."
"... "influenced by the fact that the entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on the territory of Cyprus." ..."
"... "the Cypriot government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations under European conventions," ..."
A group of MEPs have urged Cyprian authorities not to cooperate with Russia on an inquiry
against the man behind the Magnitsky Act, William Browder. Now, a Russian lawyer claims that
Browder himself arranged this petition to hide data on his operations.
Browder, a US-born British investor and the founder of Hermitage Capital Management, fears
that his fraudulent investment schemes involving offshore assets in Cyprus would be revealed to
European authorities if Cyprus continues to cooperate with Moscow on its probe against him,
Natalya Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who conducted her own investigation into Browder's
operations, told RT. She added that Browder is actively trying to paint the investigation
against him as politically motivated.
"He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his
financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why
Browder is ready to stage any provocation," Veselnitskaya said. She went on to say that
the investor's decision to intervene was particularly "influenced by the fact that the
entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on
the territory of Cyprus."
The incident that Veselnitskaya was referring to took place in late October 2017. At that
time, 17 members of the European Parliament appealed to Cypriot President Nikos Anastasiades in
an open letter, in which they called on him to stop assisting Russia in its investigation
against Browder.
The MEPs particularly expressed their concerns over the fact that "the Cypriot
government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations
through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations
under European conventions," as reported
by the local Cyprus Mail daily.
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all
of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him
unfolded.
The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare
water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has
been opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the
party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."
– This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders
(see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.
That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most
from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.
Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when
delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military
Academy, on
28 May 2014 :
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is
therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else
will...
Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle
classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they
are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...
In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at
propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness
under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our
commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy;
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is
international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only
nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and
UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen,
the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this
aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S.
policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join
in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which
the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it
only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the
United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it
does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which
has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy,
is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international
protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations
to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American
population, because
the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .
If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a
proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution
for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of
its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then
constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had
blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN
charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes
as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in
1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would
quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a
multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.
Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply
vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are
"dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in
democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb
-- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.
Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which
country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found
that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the
United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then,
a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question,
and it produced
similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people
in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and
longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is
far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's
invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.
On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes
Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported
that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling
the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult."
On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly
not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for
proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance,
instead, upon the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on
11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path
to eventually quitting NATO.
Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of
Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup
that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or
nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to
Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus,
America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the
U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently,
today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually
toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw
Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but
the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is
increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's
popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia
could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.
Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not
only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said
days after Donald Trump ripped into it.
" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be
independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where
world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.
He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding
that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his
support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that
Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.
Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by
saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become
independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction
from Washington.
Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as
Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would
do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and
there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy
the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that
they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100
U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon,
because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other
feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to
keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy
$404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms
lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency
will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners
of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.
"... Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. ..."
"... Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003. ..."
"... Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years. ..."
On Wednesday, October 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian liberal oppositionist, was interviewed by Keith Gessen, editor
of the n+1 magazine, in an event hosted by Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and
Eastern Europe. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i.e.,
an imperialist-orchestrated and funded movement of a section of the oligarchy and upper middle class to topple the Putin regime,
similar to those that have taken place in Ukraine and Georgia.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the many shadowy figures of Russian politics who, while little known to most people inside or outside
Russia, are playing a key role in directing and supporting the US anti-Russia policy and the course of the Russian pro-US liberal
opposition. The son of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Sr., who was a major figure in the oligarch-controlled Russian media under Boris Yeltsin
in the 1990s, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Jr. worked for many years as the right-hand man of Boris Nemtsov, one of Yeltsin's key allies
in the 1990s and a right-wing political opponent of Putin, who was assassinated in 2015 under murky circumstances.
Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets
Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. He has lobbied
for the adoption of similar legislation by governments throughout the world. Through this work, Kara-Murza also became close to the
late John McCain, one of Washington's foremost supporters of "color revolutions" throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union.
In August, Kara-Murza served as a pallbearer at McCain's funeral, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and the actor Warren
Beatty.
Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become
one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003.
In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years. And this
is precisely what he was invited to speak on with the self-styled leftist and Russia expert Keith Gessen, founding editor of the
n+1 magazine, one of the most popular magazines among pseudo-left circles. (Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's
Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years.)
The event started with Keith Gessen asking Kara-Murza about the
assassination of Boris Nemtsov which the
latter, of course, attributed to the Kremlin. For most of the discussion, however, Kara-Murza detailed his involvement in the preparations
for a color revolution in Russia.
Kara-Murza insisted that "the history of Russia teaches us that big political changes in our country can start quickly and unexpectedly."
He referred to both the 1905 Revolution and the February Revolution of 1917, which, as Kara-Murza pointed out, even took Lenin by
surprise, and then the collapse of the USSR "in three days" in 1991. "This is how things happen in Russia", he insisted, and "the
problem with this is that nobody is prepared. We [at the Open Russia Foundation] see it as our mission to begin those preparations
for future change now. We cannot afford to not be ready again. Most of the things we do inside of Russia is targeted at preparing
for this future transition."
The Open Russia Foundation, he continued, had 25 regional branches and a series of working groups which were already elaborating
plans for political reforms and constitutional changes for the post-Putin period. Furthermore, they were focusing on "work with the
new generation, the people who will be in charge of Russia" through training and education programs. Lastly, they were doing "international"
work, which he himself was in charge of, which included "outreach" directed, again, at preparing the "future transition."
When later asked by an audience member how he saw the future of Russia in the next few decades, he declared that this change would
come not within the next few decades, but within the next few years.
When he was asked from the audience whether the latest pension reform, which is opposed by over 90 percent of the population,
could trigger the kind of "sudden change" he was expecting, Kara-Murza said: "It could but it doesn't have to. There is always the
argument that it's [going to be] something of a socio-economic nature. Actually, if we look at the two decades of Putin, the peak
of the protests was in December 2011 when the middle class was booming. It was about dignity, it had nothing do to with social issues.
The trigger will not be necessarily economic."
He continued, "The only really shaky point [for Putin] was when so many people felt insulted that the government was wiping its
feet over them. I think it's going to be something like that. A color revolution of dignity," like the events in Ukraine in 2014.
In other words, what Kara-Murza and the Open Russia Foundation are working on is the promotion of a right-wing middle-class movement
similar to the Maidan in Ukraine, which would provide the basis for a coup to topple the current government.
The key figures and mechanisms for such a "color revolution" were also addressed at some length. Keith Gessen asked how Kara-Murza
viewed the campaign of the blogger Alexei Navalny, who, as the WSWS has written, is a
far-right, pro-US figure who cloaks his right-wing
program behind murky phrases about corruption. Just how fraudulent and politically calculated this focus is became clear in the discussion
when Keith Gessen asked whether Navalny's focus on corruption as the center of his political platform was "a winning platform." Kara-Murza
responded: "Yes, it is. Corruption is such a widely understandable issue. It's an issue that everybody is aware of."
In the discussion, a graduate student from Harriman asked whether the Open Russia Foundation had a "particular road map" for what
to do when the "sudden event" Kara-Murza expected actually occurred. Kara-Murza replied: "If there were a model, it would be something
like the Polish roundtable [of 1989]. The way we want a transition to happen in Russia is peaceful and smooth. We don't want a violent
revolution. Russia has had enough revolutions. The problem is that the people who are in power today are doing everything for a revolution
to occur."
Then, he went into the figures who would be included in such a roundtable. "Of course, Boris Nemtsov would have been at the roundtable",
but, he assured his audience, there were many others. The figures he named were: Yevgeni Roizman, the mayor of Yekaterinburg, who
is a notorious far-right-winger, with deep ties to the local mafia. In Russia, he became known above all through his alleged "drug"
relief program, which has involved heavy physical abuse of drug addicts.
He also named Galina Shirshina, a member of the liberal opposition party Yabloko (which Nemtsov led until his assassination) as
well as Lev Shlosberg, a local politician in Pskov who is also a leading member of "Yabloko." Finally, Kara-Murza named Dmitri Gudkov,
who is heading the opposition "Party of Changes" with Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak, who
ran as a presidential candidate this year
.
"Navalny and Khodorkovsky would obviously also be at the roundtable", Kara-Murza added. When Gessen asked "What about the Communists?"
Kara-Murza said that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Stalinist and National Bolshevik "Left Front", may also hope for a seat at
the roundtable. "We have very different views, but we have a good personal relationship. He's a decent human being, politically and
on a human level."
Then, he added, "there are also many nationalists who are not controlled by the Kremlin" and who could join the roundtable. Throughout
the event, Kara-Murza repeated that he and his allies were the true patriots and Russian nationalists, as opposed to Putin and the
oligarchs and officials around him. "I just don't want to bore everyone with a long list of names," he said, as he concluded his
enumeration of prospective of roundtable participants.
Like all Russian liberal oppositionists, Kara-Murza makes a hue and cry about rigged elections under Putin. Yet at no point did
he even mention the possibility of an election before or after such a "roundtable," the participants of which have most evidently
already been discussed and set.
There could hardly be a more open statement about the complicity of the so called opposition forces in Russian in a premeditated,
US-backed plot to overthrow the Putin regime and install another, more pro-US, right-wing government in its place.
Kara-Murza speaks for a section of the oligarchy which not only seeks to gain control over the social and economic wealth of Russia,
but also fears that a continuation of the Putin regime will threaten not only Russia's geopolitical position, but also social revolution.
They see their main goal in making sure that a reshuffling within the oligarchy and upper middle class takes place, to assure both
a reorientation of Russian foreign policy more directly in line with the interests of imperialism, and the ongoing suppression of
the working class.
The complete indifference toward the implications of these policies for the masses of working people in Russia was at full display
when Kara-Murza defended the process of capitalist restoration and the 1990s as time when Russia was actually make headway on the
world stage: Russia was included in the G8 and finally internationally recognized, Kara-Murza stressed.
He contemptuously dismissed any criticism of the 1990s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s." The fact
that the Russian economy experienced the worst collapse recorded in modern history for peacetime; that life expectancy plummeted,
that hundreds of thousands committed suicide and were driven into substance abuse and that workers were going without pay for months
and years, all of this is evidently of no concern to him.
Underlining the recklessness of the whole operation, the question of the potential consequences of a "color revolution" was not
even raised. But anyone who looks at the past three decades of US foreign policy knows where this type of intervention of leads:
civil war, ethnic strife, dictatorial regimes, and decades of economic, social and economic crisis. In the case of Russia, a "color
revolution" would most likely mean the violent break-up of the Russian Federation -- many opposition leaders in fact argue for different
borders of Russia. It would, moreover, raise the very immediate danger of a nuclear catastrophe: what if a section of the military
resorts to the vast nuclear arsenal of Russia to defend its interests? And what will the US military and NATO do if a color revolution
underway in Russia suddenly threatens to go astray? Will they intervene directly militarily?
The involvement of Keith Gessen in this dubious event is revealing. At no point did he raise something akin to a critical question.
His role was nothing but to ask polite questions and provide Kara-Murza with a platform. A self-styled leftist, Gessen has translated
and published the writings of Kirill Medvedev, a leading figure in the Russian Socialist Movement (RSM), a Pabloite formation in
Russia. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left. In 2014, the
RSM fully backed the far-right coup in Kiev. In Russia itself, the RSM has long shifted toward full support for Alexei Navalny's
right-wing "anti-corruption campaign," ignoring or dismissing his history of support for Russian fascism and racism. The role of
Gessen in this event is emblematic of the role of these forces as handmaidens US and European imperialism.
It was befitting for Columbia University's Harriman Institute to host this event: the first interdisciplinary Russia institute
to be formed after the beginning of the Cold War, it has historically been associated with US imperialist plotting against first
the Soviet Union and then Russia. To this day, the Harriman Institute, which is a non-profit, functions primarily as a think tank
as well as an educational and recruiting center for Washington's foreign policy establishment and the CIA.
For much of its existence, the Harriman Institute was dominated by the figure and work of
Zbigniew Brzezinski who, for over half a
century, played a central role in elaborating the world strategy and justifying the war crimes of US imperialism. One of Brzezinski's
political trademarks was his advocacy for fostering political opposition and insurrections in the Soviet Union, to undermine the
regime and thus fight what he saw as one of the US's main competitors for the control of Eurasia. The "color revolution" strategy
of US imperialism since 1991 stands in precisely this tradition. Now as then, far-right forces within the elites and fake left tendencies
are the props of imperialism "on the ground."
Events like the one at Columbia reveal much about the state of world politics. "Color revolutions" which will impact the lives
of hundreds of millions and threaten civil and all-out nuclear war, are being discussed and plotted behind the exclusive doors of
an Ivy League institution with an audience of some 50 people, most of whom are graduate students and professors who, one may assume,
either already are on the payroll of the CIA and the State Department or seeking to get there.
The Putin regime offers no alternative to these imperialist machinations. Like the sections of the oligarchy that Kara-Murza speaks
for, Putin and his cronies have emerged out of and enriched themselves on the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Union which
was carried by the Stalinist bureaucracy hand-in-gloves with imperialism. It considers not imperialism, but the Russian working class
to be its main enemy, and, hence, responds to every imperialist provocation is a response of desperate attempts to find a deal with
imperialism, largely behind closed doors, and the promotion of nationalism and militarism at home.
This sinister event is a warning to the international working class about the advanced preparations for the next step in the efforts
of US imperialism to topple the Putin regime and bring the resources of Russia under its direct control: it is high time for workers
both in the US and in Russia to intervene in politics on an independent basis to put an end to these dangerous conspiracies of imperialism
through the struggle for socialism.
A tweetstorm consisting of quotes from Israel Shamir's excellent
article on Bill Browder showing how he operated in an entirely Jewish milieu. Jewish ethnic
networking is alive and well in the twenty-first century.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This probably a uniquely Jewish
quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures,
unz.com/ishamir/the-go...
The Untouchable Mr. Browder?
The Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime.
Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they
present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by
Browder's structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the
Magnitsky Act
12:04 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish
American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the Veteran News
Network and in The Huffington Post.
12:05 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018 # Replying to @TOOEdit
"Beneficiary of Browder's generosity is Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, the engine
behind Magnitsky Act. Cardin is a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior
of good standing. More to a point, Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit
"Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder,
Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin." Lists other Jews he was involved with: Robert Maxwell, Safra,
Berezovsky,
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
Russians were robbed by Jewish people both domestic & foreign under Yeltsin & president Putin stopped them starting with Yukos
& Khodorkovsky & others like Berezovski fled to UK.
A similar history we found in the 30th in Germany which caused the rise of Adolf Hitler & his anti-Semitism ultimately ending
in the Holocaust.
Presently we see the same happening in USA where the Democratic establishment in media, industry & banks are fighting back
- using any illegal method in the book -against the white 'Waspy' Republicans of Trump. And let's not forget that the US population
is for 72% White!! That's NOT racism but pure & simple democracy at work.
Beckow says:
October 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT 400
Words @Anon 2 You are right that
Central Europe – or more precisely Eastern Central Europe that includes Austria and parts of Germany – has been blesses with a rare
combination of good (great!) geography, enough resources, high quality demographics, good location and weather, fantastic infrastructure
and a relatively normal history. Western countries have suffered from a combination of imperial overreach and the inevitable blowback.
Westerners have also lost the due diligence habits that make civilizations last. They often seem lazy and unserious.
To the east the lawlessness of the open spaces, harsh weather, and the frequent exposures to the nihilistic Asiatic exotica, have
delayed the development of a viable, stable and pleasant way of life. They might get there eventually and I wish them all the best.
Russia has a lot of fundamentals going for it, but it is also possible that the mistakes of the past – and the pathological hatreds
Russia has engendered among the Western and other imperial crazies – will strike again. It is big and tempting.
The endless attempts to slice the borders of Russia, to shrink it as Brzezinski openly dreamt about, are a foolish thing that
might bury us all. A compulsion of obsessive map readers. Russia is at its most destabilising when it is weak. That's when the temptations
become too much and some nutcase – or a 'council' of idiots – push and push. Unfortunately for the imperial builders in the West
they missed their window of opportunity and they don't seem capable of admitting it. We get ' religious schisms ' just to
make sure that no stone remains unturned. It will amount to nothing. They will have to wait for the next dip, there always seems
to be one in the ennui filled steppes.
Central Europe (V4+) is about to take over as the most desirable place on the planet. That's why we are seeing the Western attacks
on it about some very basic and sound ideas like having borders, homogeneous populations, freedom of speech and peace with neighbours,
from the rapidly disintegrating Western world. West cannot stand to live with the mistakes they have made, they want to create a
multi-racial, neo-liberal, war mongering cataclysm in order to hide the painful truth of they have done. The demographic suicide
of the West is probably irreversible. Macron and Merkel can prance around and preach their silly slogans, but they cannot change
the numbers of the ground.
They can still convince some elderly Greek in Istanbul to pour more oil on the fire. What that shows is desperation; if all West
has left are these self-defeating intrigues, they don't have much.
The President has authority under the Global Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions against
anyone who has committed a human rights violation. Congress has already requested a HR
investigation which Trump must act on and report to them within 4 months
It appears my prediction of Saudi gate may be right. This potentially is good news for
Iran and Russia. Perhaps not so good for Trump and Saidis. Israel may not be happy. Perhaps
his wife's plane troubles were a warning shot to remind him who is boss. Who knows ?
Haleys resignation beginning to make sense now. The House of Trump and House of Saud may
soon fall, and Bibi wont be happy losing Trump and MBS. We all know what they are capable of
to get things back on track
Why did the media held back on this so for so long?
Yemen (and Gaza).
CGTN & Al-Jazeera are the only global news outlets consistently and regularly reporting on the US facilitated
genocides in Yemen and Jewish-occupied Palestine/Gaza.
The never-ending Khashoggi non-mystery mystery keeps Yemen & Gaza out of the Jew-controlled Western Media
headlines. Saudi Barbaria and "Israel" are natural allies because each of them is an artificial Western political
construct with a cowardly and incompetent military apparatus and an anti-heroic penchant for slaughtering undefended
civilians - for psychopathic reasons.
--------
Talking about psychopathy...
Oz's Christian Zionist PM, Sco Mo, is blathering about following Trump's lead and moving Oz's Embassy in "Israel" to
Jerusalem. Sc Mo, who has never had an original idea in his life, still hasn't woken up to the fact that Trump's
Jerusalem gambit was a trap for Bibi. So it's hilarious that Sco Mo The Unoriginal, is planning to take a flying
leap into the same trap!
Anyone with more than half a brain would realise that...
1. No civilised country has followed Trump's lead.
2. Trump can, and will, reverse his (illegal) Jerusalem decision out of a 'new-found respect' for International Law.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 18, 2018 12:14:08 AM |
83
Whoever is ultimately behind this campaign (which I
suspect is a loose association of interest groups spread throughout SA, Turkey, London citi, wall street, whoever)
they will not stop until MbS is paraded through the streets in chains or at least his head at the end of a lance. At
this point the only question how many days will it take to see his head on a pike?
"Their target that night: Anssaf Ali Mayo, the local leader of the Islamist
political party Al-Islah. The UAE considers Al-Islah to be the Yemeni branch of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood,
which the UAE calls a terrorist organization. Many experts insist that Al-Islah, one of whose members won the Nobel
Peace Prize, is no terror group. They say it's a legitimate political party that threatens the UAE not through
violence but by speaking out against its ambitions in Yemen."
"... What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach – extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders (according to her recent Amappaling interview). ..."
The whole Magnitsky Act thing was supposed to be a convenient tool of western foreign
policy cloaked in Human Rights sugar to justify punished the usual suspects ad
perpituitam, not for attacking allies. It looks like some US politicians actually think it is
about human rights! They'll need to practice their best acting to explain why some are on the
list and others aren't, along with compliant media and governments.
What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach –
extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The
implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders
(according to her recent Amappaling interview).
Trump is also promising a rapid USG reaction to India buying S-400s, so it really is time
to stock up on the popcorn. I knew for sure that this year would certainly be more
interesting than last year, but 2019 should be a corker. Woo.
I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International Court of Crimes and the International
Court of Justice are based in The Hague. There may be other reasons as well: the Dutch must have a fair few skeletons in their
collective closet and the US could very well target one of these and bring the entire wardrobe crashing down and exposing all
its sordid secrets.
One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the
US.
Pence is now accusing of China of hacking the US elections. I know China has been lobbying and making campaign finance contributions
in the past, but the US accusations have a clear pattern. Recall how US blacks were tagged as rapists of fine white virgins. This
reputation was then used to justify apartheid laws. The US is basically accusing Russia and China of violation of America's "dignity".
And is trying to globally treat them as segregated blacks. The same tired shtick for the "exceptional" nation with a self-assigned
"manifest destiny". The country that needs containment is the USA. It has clear, psychotic ambitions to rule the world.
Coming from government ministers of the most powerful state on earth, do not all these accusations directed against all those
other states that are populated by sad, lesser beings who are envious of the "Shining City on the Hill", the "Home of the Brave
and Land of the Free", that epitome of human society, that place where "history has ended", not sound somwhat hysterical, a symptom
of weakness, of self-doubt concerrning the hegemon's might and integrity?
They need an excuse for their colonial racket. During the USSR era, they had the "threat of communism" to rally local elites in
developing countries and also used this "threat" as an excuse to install death squad junta regimes. The death of the USSR deprived
them of the "threat" fig leaf so they had to ramp up the humanitarian concern BS. Countries need to be controlled by demonizing
their leaders for being tyrants and terrorist sponsors. For violating human rights by not letting Soros and NATzO funded 5th column
operations called NGOs do their thing. It seems these transparent pretexts are still effective at convincing people around the
world that America and its vassals are a collection of noble knights doing good deeds and not a pack of hyenas engaged in gang
mutilation of countries that leads to millions of deaths of innocent civilians. What was the point of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and
all the other regime change victims? There was no arrival of democracy and safety. There was only needless death and degradation.
The west returns compulsively to the region because it thinks that this is where things might
tear loose; independence movements in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan. Where, as the
western regime-change impulse fondly returns time and again, issues of fundamentalist
religion can be played upon to flare into conflict – it has worked for the west all
around the world, turning Shi'ite against Sunni and this one against that one. It often
signals its interest with plaintive articles by pro-democracy think-tanks implore Vladimir
Putin to let the Chechens be free, instead of imposing a succession of overlords upon them,
bla, bla, you know the drill. How can Putin diss the mighty USA for supporting oppressors of
choice around the world when he won't man up and let the Chechens have their own free state?
In fact, Putin has said in the past that the Chechens can be free and independent if that
is what they really want. But implied in that is that Moscow will no longer underwrite the
new state; that it will have to achieve economic viability itself.
Normally that is where the west comes in, singing siren songs of sovereignty-association
and fabulous prosperity to be had in attaching oneself to the western orbit. But so far not
enough people buy it – there are always the rebel darlings, the tearaways who bleat
discontent and stir the imagination of the western press. But just as often they are
religious nutters and suicide bombers who just want a dramatic death. Like that chap and his
missus – Dagestan, I think it was, a few years back – who had their apartment
shot to rubble with them in it after they repeatedly refused repeated offers to surrender and
live, deigning only for a hi-lift crane bucket to come up to the balcony to give their
daughter into the arms of her wailing granny. Martyrdom and progressive leadership almost
never flourish in the same person, for some reason. Except maybe for Jeremy Corbyn.
Just looked up Ingushetia on Wikipedia and found it's a small federal republic whose
population as of 2014 was less than 500,000.
I rather doubt then that thousands of people turned up in Magas to protest. If there are
no aerial photographs of the protesters, then we have to treat the figures reported by
Reuters and other news agencies outside Russia with suspicion.
There is dispute over the size of the area being transferred to Chechnya: the area
officially being transferred amounts to less than 2,000 hectares but according to Ingushetian
opposition group Mekhk Kkhel 58,000 hectares are being transferred. The difference between
the figures seems suspicious and the upper figure is likely to be an exaggeration.
We strive to shed light and offer a variety of perspectives on ongoing
social, economic and political developments in the region, including in: human
rights, ethnic and religious minorities, labour rights, gender and queer issues,
development, as well as conflict dynamics in the region
OC Media was co-founded in January 2017 by Mari Nikuradze, Dominik K. Cagara, and
Caroline Sutcliffe, initially under the auspices of Chai Khana NGO. It has received funding
from the UK Government's Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, the European Endowment for
Democracy, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung South Caucasus Office, Open Society
Foundations, and the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with
joint commissions with International Alert (EPNK/European Union
Initiative), Civil.ge (COBERM), and Open Democracy Russia.
Vis the Dutch push for a new sanctions regime for Human Rights abusers, apart from global
sponsors of Islamic terrorism who also happen to have $$$, the obvious takeaway that only
just occurred to me is that the push for a European Magnitsky Act must have failed.
This is exactly the same thing, they just dropped the name. The EU is not united and
I don't see the Netherlands as having enough influence in the EU without the UK.
The British military is ready to take this step in case of an "attack" by Russia against one of the Western countries
LONDON, 7 October 2018, 07:28 -- REGNUM The military command of Great Britain has announced its willingness to carry out
a cyber attack against Moscow , writes the British newspaper "The Sunday Times" on 7 October,.
According to the publication, citing an unnamed source closely familiar with the situation , the British military
is ready to take this step in case of an "attack" by Russia against a Western country. This measure will be possible when Britain
has a shortage of conventional defence resources and will manifest itself by the fact that the capital of Russia will have its
energy supplies cut off.
According to the "Sunday Times" source, variants of "Russian aggression", against which the British military is prepared
to use cyber weapons, are said to be an invasion by Russian President Vladimir Putin of Libya in order to seize oil and to
create a new crisis of migrants in Europe and an attempt to capture "small Islands belonging to Estonia". [Such action
would be taken by the UK] so as to comply with a NATO clause, in which an attack against one member is considered to be an
attack against the whole alliance.
We should note that recently the West has been constantly accusing Russia of cyber attacks against the West for economic
sabotage and interference in local political life. However, tangible evidence of Russian guilt as regards such accusations has
not once been provided.
My stress above.
Why should Russia, personified as the Dark Lord, wish to seize oil in Libya? Has Russia no oil of its own?
Sowing disarray in Libya? Now who, I wonder, might have done that before now?
An immigrant crisis in Europe created by the Empire of Evil?
And the present crisis? Created by whom?
Estonian Islands? What need has Russia of islands in the Baltic?
And of course, an unnamed source.
All in all, classic "projection: the West threatening to do what it has long planned and, furthermore, continuously accused
Russia of doing , without providing any evidence whatsoever, so as to psych-up the sheeple for justified retaliation against the
"Putin Regime".
"... Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead. ..."
"... Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world). ..."
"... we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation. ..."
"... the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy ..."
"... at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war. ..."
"... Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." ..."
"... The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse ..."
"... If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected. ..."
It is rather surprising that the Democrats who have demonized Donald Trump at every turn
have voted in favour of the this extremely bloated defense budget, putting even more military
might into the hands of a President and Commander-in-Chief that they seem to despise and who
they are demonizing because of his alleged collusion with Russia.
We've been in WW3 for several years now. Bolton went "Full Monty" with his
declaration that U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran vacates. The introduction of a
Yemen War Powers Resolution in the House last week is a hopeful sign. A reason to root
for a Blue Wave in November. Dem leadership, already on record backing the War Powers
Resolution, would be obligated to block U.S. enabling genocide in Yemen.
I disagree with Eric Zusse's belief that USA wants to start WWIII. I think they want to
contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to destroy the Russian
and Chinese economies. War is only a last resort. But heightened military tensions mean that
the major protagonists have to divert resources to their military, causing a drag on the
economies.
Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the
period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't
seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure"
instead.
The big concern for me is that "maximum pressure" also means an elevated chance of
mistakes and miscalculations that could inadvertently cause WWIII.
Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies
when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late
2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is
not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world).
PS IMO Trump election and the Kavanaugh and Gina Haspel nominations are key to the pursuit
of global hegemony.
Most warnings have centered on a financial meltdown, as this article
reviews . As most know, IMO we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War,
which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation.
As noted in my link to Escobar's latest, the EU has devised a retaliatory mechanism to
shield itself and others from the next round of illegal sanctions Trump's promised to impose
after Mid-term elections.
In an open thread post, I linked to Hudson's latest audio-cast; here's what he said on the 10th
anniversary of the 2008 crash: "So this crash of 2008 was not a crash of the banks. The banks
were bailed out. The economy was left with all the junk mortgages in place, all the
fraudulent debts."
Another article I linked to in a comment to james averred the "real" US economy is
only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy . Hudson again:
"Contrary to the idea that bailing out the banks helps the economy, the fact is that the
economy today cannot recover without a bank failure ." [My emphasis]
Wh at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open
eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire
for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing
war.
As Hudson's stated many times, the goal of the 1% is to reestablish Feudalism via
debt-peonage. All the other happenings geopolitically serve to mask this Class War within the
Outlaw US Empire. Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political
upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution."
Many predict that this crisis will be timed to occur in 2020 constituting the biggest
election meddling of all time.
The crisis will likely be blamed on China without any evidence for hacking Wall Street and
causing the subsequent crash -- a Financial False Flag to serve the same purpose as 911.
Much can occur and be obscured during wartime. The radical changes to USA from 1938-1948
is very instructive--the commonfolk were on the threshold of gaining control over the federal
government for the first time in US history only to have it blocked then reversed (forever?)
by FDR and the 1% who tried to overthrow him in 1933.
Same with the current War OF Terror's use to curtail longstanding civil liberties and
constitutional rights and much more. To accomplish what's being called "Bail-In" within the
USA, Martial Law would need to be emplaced since most of the public is to be robbed of
whatever cash they have, and World War would probably be the only way to get Martial Law
instituted--and accepted by the military which would be its enforcer.
A precedent exists for stealing money from the people--their gold--via Executive Order 6102 , which
used a law instituted during WW1 and still on the books.
The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now
becoming exponentially worse . Critical graphs are going off their charts. The end is
near.
If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities
it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is
natural, and to be expected.
Like individual humans, the human population as a whole can pursue activities that
maintain it's health, or it can indulge in activities that create disease and hasten it's
death. Humankind is deep in toxifying behaviors that signal it's demise in the near
future.
Posted the following this morning on last week's Open Thread, so I'm reposting here
This comment will try to focus on the Big Picture while ignoring all the sideshows and distractions
The Big Picture has three parts: (1) 9/11 where it all started (2) Putin was a "good guy" when he was aligned with the "war
on terror" (3) Putin became a bad guy the moment he figured out that ALL these wars were to destroy nations, not save them, and
so he intervened in Syria
(1) the people who did 9/11 are the SAME people who are trying to menace Russia (as well as Syria and Iran) today
9/11 is where it all started .this event led us to where we are now .
There are posted videos of news outlets reporting on building seven collapsing – BEFORE it did. That would be impossible without
ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE of the controlled demolition of that building. Something that Osama and his 19 henchmen would not have been
able to accomplish even if they could have done the rest, which is beyond preposterous.
(2) And so right after 9/11, when the chimp looked into Putin's eyes, and saw a good guy, that was when Putin was aligned with
the nascent "war on terror". Something Vlad was all too familiar with, and happy to help out the West with, in any way he could.
(3) But then Vladimir figured out, (what most have apparently been unable to figure out) – that ALL of these wars – (following
the *OBVIOUSLY* lied about 9/11 false flag), are intended to destroy nations, not save them. Duh.
The people who did 9/11 (Zionists and their lackeys in the West, NATO, CIA, etc..) are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are trying to
menace Russia today.
And yet many people haven't even bothered to look into this event. THE event that will be ultimately responsible for the clash
of civilizations to come, when the Zionists demand Putin vacate Syria so they can steal the Golan Heights.
How can a someone ruminate over, write about, postulate and pontificate over a (((Western))) foreign policy that maligns and
menaces Russia.. and yet fail to see the obvious?
For us to have NO curiousity about 9/11 would be like Bashar Assad believing the war he's been fighting was a home-grown event
unaffected by foreign interests.
It all started with 9/11. That was the pretext for Gen. Clark's "We're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting
with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
Retired General Wesley Clark.
Have you ever seen the video?
Do you understand how that agenda might have effected the (((West's))) relations with Russia, once Putin put his foot down over
Syria?
Or are all of these things completely independent of each other, and the war on Syria is actually being waged by disgruntled Syrian
Muslims who want a less secular state, with help from NATO ONLY when Assad uses chemical weapons against his own civilians?
Why are otherwise smart people unable to comprehend, (or even contemplate) the big picture?
Use of wahhabi jihadists began in the late seventies in Afghanistan. From there they were shipped to the Russian Caucasus in
the mid nineties to assist with the breakup of the Russian federation.
The petro dollar hegemony began with the discovery of oil at Prudhoe bay in the late sixties.
False flags are a proud American tradition virtually since its inception.
It is interesting also that The US (and other Western Powers) allied with and used Muslims in Yugoslavia. These were posited as
the good guy victims in need of Humanitarian Intervention by carpet bombing the Orthodox Christian Serbs. Of course the Muslims
were financed and equipped as freedom fighters. TV, Radio stations and hospitals with workers in them, were destroyed in this
humanitarian intervention.
Now it is a mishmash of small broken states with US Military bases located in them. One of the largest bases is Camp Bondsteel
in Kosovo. Named for Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipient United States Army Staff Sergeant James L. Bondsteel, the name reminds
one of a character from Dr. Strangelove (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bob).
The once successful socialist nation was broken and partitioned and looted by Multinational Corps and Western Banks.
The destruction of that country took years in the making. Reagan admin instituted the first round of sanctions. It became ripe
for the taking after Tito died and the USSR was in chaos.
While each successive admin piled on, Bill Clinton got to be the point man for the prolonged attacks. Interestingly, Hillary
takes credit for urging Bill to bomb civilian population centers.
A precurser to "We Came, We saw, He died...HAHAHAHHAHA).
That's amazing example of contlling the nattarive and suppressing alternative sources. Should
go in all textbooks on the subject
Notable quotes:
"... Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported in the New York Times on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see here and here ). ..."
"... Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking very professional and compelling. ..."
"... For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too. ..."
"... Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole. ..."
"... The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice, Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because he wouldn't retract. ..."
"... It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather, he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'. ..."
"... The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned companies. ..."
"... According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus, ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember, or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators. ..."
Before getting down to brass tacks, let me say that I loathe penning articles like this; loathe writing about myself or in the
first person, because a reporter should report the news, not be the news. Yet I grudgingly make this exception because, ironically,
it happens to be newsworthy. To cut to the chase, it concerns Anglo-American financier Bill Browder and the Sergei Magnitsky affair.
I, like others in the news business I'd venture to guess, feel led astray by Browder.
This is no excuse. I didn't do my due diligence, and take full responsibility for erroneous information printed under my name.
For that, I apologize to readers. I refer to two articles of mine published in a Cypriot publication, dated December 25, 2015 and
January 6, 2016.
Browder's basic story, as he has told it time and again, goes like this: in June 2007, Russian police officers raided the Moscow
offices of Browder's firm Hermitage, confiscating company seals, certificates of incorporation, and computers.
Browder says the owners and directors of Hermitage-owned companies were subsequently changed, using these seized documents. Corrupt
courts were used to create fake debts for these companies, which allowed for the taxes they had previously paid to the Russian Treasury
to be refunded to what were now re-registered companies. The funds stolen from the Russian state were then laundered through banks
and shell companies.
The scheme is said to have been planned earlier in Cyprus by Russian law enforcement and tax officials in cahoots with criminal
elements.
All this was supposedly discovered by Magnitsky, whom Browder had tasked with investigating what happened. When Magnitsky reported
the fraud, some of the nefarious characters involved had him arrested and jailed. He refused to retract, and died while in pre-trial
detention.
In my first article, I wrote: "Magnitsky, a 37-year-old Russian accountant, died in jail in 2009 after he exposed huge tax embezzlement
"
False . Contrary to the above story that has been rehashed countless times, Magnitsky did not expose any tax fraud, did not blow
the whistle.
The interrogation
reports show that Magnitsky had in fact been summoned by Russian authorities as a witness to an already ongoing investigation
into Hermitage. Nor he did he accuse Russian investigators Karpov and/or Kuznetsov of committing the $230 million treasury fraud,
as Browder claims.
Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported
in the New York Times
on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies
and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before
Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see
here
and here
).
Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached
out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking
very professional and compelling.
At the time of the first article, I knew next to nothing about the Magnitsky/Browder affair. I had to go through media reports
to get the gist, and then get up to speed with Browder's latest claims that a Cypriot law firm, which counted the Hermitage Fund
among its clients, had just been 'raided' by Cypriot police. The article had to be written and delivered on the same day. In retrospect
I should have asked for more time – a lot more time – and Devil take the deadlines.
For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel
on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information
which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too.
In the ensuing weeks and months, I didn't follow up on the story as my gut told me something was wrong: villains and malign actors
operating in a Wild West Russia, and at the centre of it all, a heroic Magnitsky who paid with his life – the kind of script that
Hollywood execs would kill for.
Subsequently I mentally filed away the Browder story, while being aware it was in the news.
But the real red pill was a documentary by Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, which came to my attention a few weeks ago.
Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's
story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as
Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole.
The director had set out to make a poignant film about Magnitsky's tragedy, but became increasingly troubled as the facts he uncovered
didn't stack up with Browder's account, he claims.
The 'aha' moment arrives when Nekrasov appears to show solid proof that Magnitsky blew no whistle.
Not only that, but in his
depositions
– the first one dating to 2006, well before Hermitage's offices were raided – Magnitsky did not accuse any police officers of being
part of the 'theft' of Browder's companies and the subsequent alleged $230m tax rebate fraud.
The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice,
Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because
he wouldn't retract.
We are meant to take Browder's word for it.
It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather,
he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky
as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'.
The clincher comes late in the film, with footage from Browder's April 15, 2015 deposition in a US federal court, in the Prevezon
case. The case, brought by the US Justice Department at Browder's instigation, targeted a Russian national who Browder said had received
$1.9m of the $230m tax fraud.
In the deposition, Browder is asked if Magnitsky had a law degree in Russia. "I'm not aware that he did," he replies.
The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on
Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched
it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide
on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He
cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned
companies.
This is despite the fact that the now-famous Powerpoint presentations – hosted on so many 'anti-corruption' websites and recited
by 'human rights' NGOs – were prepared by Browder's own team.
Nor does he recall where, or how, he and his team obtained information on the amounts of the 'stolen' funds funnelled into companies.
When it's pointed out that in any case this information would be privileged – banking secrecy and so forth – Browder appears to be
at a loss.
According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus,
ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember,
or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators.
He can't explain how they acquired the flight records and dates, doesn't have any documentation at hand, and isn't aware if any
such documentation exists.
Browder claims his 'Justice for Magnitsky' campaign, which among other things has led to US sanctions on Russian persons, is all
about vindicating the young man. Were that true, one would have expected Browder to go out of his way to aid Magnitsky in his hour
of need.
The deposition does not bear that out.
Lawyer: "Did anyone coordinate on your behalf with Firestone Duncan about the defence of Mr Magnitsky?"
Browder: "I don't know. I don't remember."
Going back to Nekrasov's film, a standout segment is where the filmmaker looks at a briefing document prepared by Team Browder
concerning the June 2007 raid by Russian police officers. In it, Browder claims the cops beat up Victor Poryugin, a lawyer with the
firm.
The lawyer was then "hospitalized for two weeks," according to Browder's presentation, which includes a photo of the beaten-up
lawyer. Except, it turns out the man pictured is not Poryugin at all. Rather, the photo is actually of Jim Zwerg, an American human
rights activist beaten up during a street protest in 1961 (see
here and here ).
Nekrasov sits down with German politician Marieluise Beck. She was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(Pace), which compiled a report that made Magnitsky a cause celebre.
You can see Beck's jaw drop when Nekrasov informs her that Magnitsky did not report the fraud, that he was in fact under investigation.
It transpires that Pace, as well as human rights activists, were getting their information from one source – Browder. Later, the
Council of Europe's Andreas Gross admits on camera that their entire investigation into the Magnitsky affair was based on Browder's
info and that they relied on translations of Russian documents provided by Browder's team because, as Gross puts it, "I don't speak
Russian myself."
That hit home – I, too, had been fed information from a single source, not bothering to verify it. I, too, initially went with
the assumption that because Russia is said to be a land of endemic corruption, then Browder's story sounded plausible if not entirely
credible.
For me, the takeaway is this gem from Nekrasov's narration:
"I was regularly overcome by deep unease. Was I defending a system that killed Magnitsky, even if I'd found no proof that he'd
been murdered?"
Bull's-eye. Nekrasov has arrived at a crossroads, the moment where one's mettle is tested: do I pursue the facts wherever they
may lead, even if they take me out of my comfort zone? What is more important: the truth, or the narrative? Nekrasov chose the former.
As do I.
Like with everything else, specific allegations must be assessed independently of one's general opinion of the Russian state.
They are two distinct issues. Say Browder never existed; does that make Russia a paradise?
I suspect Team Browder may scrub me from their mailing list; one can live with that.
oncemore1 , 6 minutes ago
Soros and Browder are the same tribe. FULLSTOP.
Slipstream , 6 minutes ago
Wow. That's a big **** up. But at least this guy is a journalist with ethics. He got it
wrong and has said so, to set the record straight. This should be a case taught in every
journalism school in the world. Unfortunately, I don't see the Magnitsky Act being repealed
any time soon.
Usura , 8 minutes ago
Bill Browder is a lying ***
Thordoom , 12 minutes ago
Andrei Nekrasov now has webpage dedicated to The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes.
I watched the documentary too. The depositions of Browder were devastating to any notion
of him as truth-teller. And yet, he managed to dupe politicians and media around the
world.
Thordoom , 33 minutes ago
The only good thing Yeltsin did in his miserable life was to say " **** you " to Bill
Clinton in the end when he found out how they wanted to set him up with that 7 billion of IMF
money they stolen in order to put Boris Berezovsky in the charge of Russia as a president for
hire and stole anything that was not welded down. Yeltsin knowing that the only way for
Russia to survive was to put Vladimir Putin in charge to clense the unclean filth that
infested Russia in the 90s
resistedliving , 52 minutes ago
classic agitprop.
Don't trust Browder and his self-interests much but trust this guy less.
Browser knows he'll never see that money again and has spent his own funds on his one man
mission
Thordoom , 40 minutes ago
Stupid moron he is spending Knohorkovsky's money and HSBC bank money. Half of the UK and
US government officials and intl officials and Harward boys are deeply involved in this
looting of Russian people in the 90s.
RationalLuddite , 31 minutes ago
Classic Reverse blockade lie by you Restedliving. Good luck moving the middle on Browder .
He's just not that bright in lying so I suppose your Talmudic exegesis honed Accusatory
Inversion is worth a try.
Please keep it up. Seriously. "Agitprop"😄😄😄😄
You are like a Browder red-pill dispenser with every incoherent mendacious utterance.
Thank you mate :*
WTFUD , 29 minutes ago
Bruiser Browser Browder, ex light-heavyweight champion of La-La Potemkin Village,
Ninnyapolis, USA.
Shouldn't Fakebook be banning the US Government for a plethora of Fake News? Then again
it's a nice fit for these 2 entities, a cosy relationship.
The Paucity of Hope , 54 minutes ago
Nekrasov's movie has been disappeared, but was excellent. Also, look at The Forecaster,
about Martin Armstrong. It talks about Hermatage Capital and was blocked in the US and
Switzerland for several years.
Ahmeexnal , 57 minutes ago
Browder must hang!
chunga , 38 minutes ago
Not a single person in the US gov will even acknowledge this. None. Not one.
At the same time the US domestic affairs revolve around unsubstantiated stories of SC
nominee penis wagging, special prosecutors investigating **** actress affairs/bribery with
POTUS, FBI, DOJ off the rails, while at the same time asserting a moral authority to sanction
and/or attack other countries as though it's an obligation or entitlement.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
-- The Empire Strikes Back
Since Vladimir Putin brought up Bill Browder's name in Helsinki, events have escalated to a
fever pitch. Russia is under extreme attack the U.S./European financial and political
establishment.
Danske's report on these allegations are due on Wednesday.
No matter what they say, however, the die has been cast.
Danske is being targeted for termination by the U.S. and possible takeover by the European
Central Bank.
There's precedent for this but let me lay out some background first.
The Oldest
Trick
Browder's complaint says the money laundered is in connection with the reason why he was
thrown out of Russia and the $230 million in stolen tax money which Browder's cause
célèbre , the death of accountant Sergei Magnitsky, hangs on.
That crusade got the Magnitsky Act passed not only in the U.S. but all across the West, with
versions on the books in Canada, Australia the EU and other places.
Danske's shares have been gutted in the wake of the accusation.
The U.S. is now investigating this complaint and that shouldn't come as much of a shock.
The Treasury Department can issue whatever findings it wants, and then respond by starving
Danske of dollars, known as the "Death Blow" option the threat of which was plastered
all over the pages of the Wall St. Journal on Friday.
Note this article isn't behind the Journal's pay-wall. They want everyone to see this.
Browder filed complaints both in Demmark and in Estonia, and the Estonian government was
only too happy to oblige him.
The Devil Played
To see the whole picture I have to go back a littler further.
Back in March, Latvian bank, ABLV, was targeted in a similar manner, accused of laundering
money. Within a week the ECB moved in to take control of the bank even though it wasn't in
danger of failing.
It was an odd move, where the ECB exercised an extreme response utilizing its broader powers
given to it after the 2008 financial crisis, like it did with Spain's Banco Popular in
2017.
Why? The U.S. was looking for ways to cut off Russia from the European banking system. And
the ECB did its dirty work.
I wrote about this
back in May in relation to the Treasury demanding all U.S. investors divest themselves of
Russian debt within thirty days.
It threw the ruble and Russian debt markets into turmoil since Russian companies bought a lot
of euro-denominated debt after the Ruble Crisis of 2014, having been shut off from dollars.
ABLV was a conduit for many Russian entities to keep access to Europe's banks, having been
grandfathered in as clients when the Baltics entered the Euro-zone.
So, now a replay of ABLV's seizure is playing out through Browder's money laundering
complaint against Danske.
Was Convincing Everyone
The goal of this lawsuit is two-fold.
The first is to undermine the faith in the Danish banking system. Dutch giant ING is also
facing huge AML fines.
This is a direct attack on the EU banking system to being it under even more stringent
government control.
The second goal, however, is far more important. As I said, the U.S. is desperate to cut
money flow between the European Union and Russia, not just to stop the construction of
Nordstream 2, but to keep Russia's markets weak having to scramble for euros to make coupon
payments and create a roll-over nightmare.
Turkey is facing this now, Russia went through it in 2014/15.
So, attacking a major bank like Danske for consorting with dirty Russians and using Mr.
Human Rights Champion Browder to file the complaint is pure power politics to keep the EU
itself from seeking rapprochement with Russia.
Anti-Money Laundering laws are tyrannical and vaguely worded. And with the Magnitsky Act and
its follow-up, CAATSA, in place, they help support defining money laundering to include
anything the U.S. and the EU deem as supporting 'human rights violations.'
Seeing the trap yet?
Now all of it can be linked through simple accusation regardless of the facts. The bank gets
gutted, investors and depositors get nervous, the ECB then steps in and there goes another
tendril between Russia and Europe doing business.
And that ties into Browder's minions in the European Parliament, all in the pay of Open
Society Foundation, issued a threat of invoking Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to Cyprus over
assisting Russia investigate Browder's financial dealings there.
Why? Violations of Mr. Browder's human rights because, well, Russia!
What's becoming more obvious to me as the days pass is that Browder is an obvious asset of
the U.S. financial and political oligarchy, if not U.S. Intelligence. They use his humanitarian
bona fides to visit untold misery on millions of people simply to:
1) cover up their malfeasance in Russia
2) wage hybrid war on anyone willing to stand up to their machinations.
He Didn't Exist
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990's, fresh 'off the boat' as it were, convince
someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at
less than pennies on the dollar?
It simply doesn't pass a basic sniff test.
Danske is the biggest bank in Denmark and one of the oldest in Europe. The message should be
clear.
If they can be gotten to this way, anyone can.
Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by
Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being 'friends of Vladimir'
it's obvious that the target isn't Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone
in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in
Rostov-on-Don.
Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through
the Moscow phone book.
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd's single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has
been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine
the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
The more Browder gets defended by people punching far above his weight, the more obvious it
is that there is something wrong with his story. Undermining the reputation of the biggest bank
in Denmark is a 'playing-for-keeps' moment.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time.
It undermines the validity of government institutions, exposing corruption that proves we
live in a world ruled by men, not laws. That the U.S. and EU are fundamentally no different in
their leadership than banana republics.
And that's bad for currency and debt markets as capital always flows to where it is treated
best.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time. The seizure of ABLV
and 2017's liquidation of Spain's Banco Popular were rightly described by Martin Armstrong as
defining moments where no one in their right mind would invest in a European banks if there was
the possibility of losing all of your capital due to a change in the political winds
overnight.
Using the European Parliament to censure Cyprus via Article 7 over one man's financial
privacy, which no one is guaranteed in this world today thanks to these same AML and KYC laws,
reeks of cronyism and corruption of the highest degree.
If you want to know what a catalyst for the collapse of the European banking system looks
like, it may well be what happens this week if Danske tries to fight the spider's web laid down
by Bill Browder and his friends in high places.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 170 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going quickly mad.
hanekhw , 1 minute ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
hanekhw , 16 minutes ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
zeroboris , 24 minutes ago
They use his humanitarian bona fides
Browder's bona fides? LOL
monad , 8 minutes ago
Minion (((Browder))) snitches on his masters. Nowhere to hide.
Vanilla_ISIS , 18 minutes ago
Someone should just kill this dude. Browder has certainly earned it.
roadhazard , 14 minutes ago
But what about the money laundering.
Panic Mode , 15 minutes ago
You better run. Your buddy McCain is gone and see who else will fight for you.
pndr4495 , 42 minutes ago
Somehow - Mnuchkin's desire to sell his Park Ave. apartment fits into this tale of
intrigue and bullshit.
markar , 47 minutes ago
Send this guy Browder a polonium cocktail. It's on me.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
((Browder)) ??
Clogheen , 37 minutes ago
Yes. Did you really need to ask?
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
Max Cynical , 1 hour ago
I watch the banned documentary...The Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes.
Only the slimiest rats get into the club of "Can Do No Wrong" and these types of gigs.
Thaxter , 1 hour ago
This documentary is first class, a really absorbing look into the mind of the sociopath
Browder, a pathological, absolutely shameless liar and a very stupid and weak person. To
understand the influence that this insignificant invertebrate yields, look to his father,
Earl Russell Browder, who was the leader of the Communist Party in the United States during
the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.
blindfaith , 22 minutes ago
Look no further than our own political circus to see that mighty hands pull the strings.
Like all strings, they will fray and break...eventually.
Jim in MN , 1 hour ago
Yes well the Big Question for us now is the degree to which the President is in control of
any of this.
Recall, dear ZH fighters, how we worked out a sound strategy for the Trump Administration
in the early days. Key aspects were to leave the generals and the bankers alone for a couple
of years. This would allow immigration, trade, health care and deregulation including tax
reform to form the early core wins, along with Supreme Court nominees of course.
Lo, cometh the Deep State and its frantic attempts to both save and conceal itself.
One key tentacle was to rouse the intelligence community into an active enemy of the
POTUS. This partially fouled up the 'leave the generals alone' strategy.
Another is to try to force war with the emergent Eurasian hegemony comprised of China and
Russia. This is seen all across the 'hinterland' of Russia.
The USA has no vital strategic interests in Eurasia at this juncture of history. Everyone
should be clear on that.
The USA's logical and sane policy stance is to support peace, free and fair trade, and
stable democracy, including border controls and the rule of law through LEADING BY
EXAMPLE.
So for Trump to continue to allow the financial sector Deep State traitors to operate
against a peaceful Eurasia is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Where to from here?
BandGap , 1 hour ago
Keep opening it up to scrutiny.
This article opened my eyes, I did not fully understand why Russia was all over Browder
except the stealing aspect, but bigger yet, why he was being protected by the EU/US.
No wonder Putin wants to work with the Donno. Taking Browder out and exposing this
manipulation works for both sides.
LA_Goldbug , 40 minutes ago
If Browder is a surprise to you then look at Khodorkovsky (there is more of these types
from he came from).
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?"
Exactly. He was sent by the Anglo-Zionist Tribe otherwise he would be a nobody.
JacquesdeMolay , 1 hour ago
Also, a very good book on the topic: "suppressed and banned by the CIA's supplier, Amazon,
The Grand Deception: The Browder Hoax is a highly intelligent, frank and entertaining
take-down of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the US public and the world
– The Magnitsky Act. Krainer's study of Bill Browder's book and actions is a riveting,
unflinching expose of what might end up being pivotal in revealing one of this decade's big
hoaxes."
The west going on attack mode against Cyprus to protect Browder. Cyprus is cooperating
with Putin on his financial dealings which all flowed through Cyprus. Lots of skeletons there
that implicate many more important people than Browder
Real reason for western elite hatred of Russia is that it has destroyed neo con dreams of
full spectrum dominance in military affairs. Doubt US would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if
Russian military was as strong then as it us today.
In all areas held by jihadis the most difficult issue was how to blow them up and not the
civilians they were holding hostage. The Syrian and Russian strategy has been from the start
to let the jihadis do their thing, wait, never escalate but negotiate, so as to avoid
civilian casualties. This strategy has worked to win the war, and seems to be the same one
they're following in Idlib. In contrast to previous hawkish threats by FUKUS and Nato, the
propaganda mills are churning out much milder fare than previously. The Israelis have started
admitting they were supporting '12' terror groups in Syria, and French ex foreign minister of
defense, now 'minister for Europe and foreign affairs' Jean-Yves Le Drian, has declared that
Nato has lost the war, but Assad has not 'won the peace'. Assad and Putin have learnt the
lesson long ago, that they cannot negotiate with terrorists like Le Drian, and are better off
negotiating with Erdogan, AlQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Making Russia 'The Enemy'
December 15, 2016
•
156
Comments
Save
Exclusive:
Despite conflicting
accounts about who leaked the Democratic emails, the frenzy over an alleged Russian role is driving the U.S. deeper into
a costly and dangerous New Cold War, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The rising hysteria about Russia is best understood as
fulfilling two needs for Official Washington: the Military Industrial Complex's transitioning from the "war on terror"
to a more lucrative "new cold war" – and blunting the threat that a President Trump poses to the
neoconservative/liberal-interventionist foreign-policy establishment.
By hyping the Russian "threat," the neocons and their
liberal-hawk sidekicks, who include much of the mainstream U.S. news media, can guarantee bigger military budgets from
Congress. The hype also sets in motion a blocking maneuver to impinge on any significant change in direction for U.S.
foreign policy under Trump.
Wintery scene at Red Square in Moscow, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)
Some Democrats even hope to stop Trump from ascending to the
White House by having the Central Intelligence Agency, in effect, lobby the electors in the Electoral College with scary
tales about Russia trying to fix the election for Trump.
The electors meet on Dec. 19 when they will formally cast their
votes, supposedly reflecting the judgments of each state's voters, but conceivably individual electors could switch
their ballots from Trump to Hillary Clinton or someone else.
On Thursday, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. joined the call
for electors to flip,
writing
:
"The question is whether Trump, Vladimir Putin and, perhaps, Clinton's popular-vote advantage give you sufficient reason
to blow up the system."
That Democrats would want the CIA, which is forbidden to
operate domestically in part because of its historic role in influencing elections in other countries, to play a similar
role in the United States shows how desperate the Democratic Party has become.
And, even though The New York Times and other big news outlets
are
reporting
as flat fact
that Russia hacked the Democratic email accounts and gave the information to WikiLeaks, former British
Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told the London Daily Mail that
he
personally received the email data
from a "disgusted" Democrat.
Murray said he flew from London to Washington for a clandestine
handoff from one of the email sources in September, receiving the package in a wooded area near American University.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray
"Neither of [the leaks, from the Democratic National Committee
or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] came from the Russians," Murray said, adding: "the source had legal access to
the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."
Murray said the insider felt "disgust at the corruption of the
Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders." Murray added that his
meeting was with an intermediary for the Democratic leaker, not the leaker directly.
[
Update:
Murray
subsequently said his contact with the intermediary at American University was not for the purpose of obtaining a batch
of the purloined emails, as the Daily Mail reported, since WikiLeaks already had them. He said the Mail simply added
that detail to the story, but Murray declined to explain why he had the meeting at A.U. with the whistleblower or an
associate.]
If Murray's story is true, it raises several alternative
scenarios: that the U.S. intelligence community's claims about a Russian hack are false; that Russians hacked the
Democrats' emails for their own intelligence gathering without giving the material to WikiLeaks; or that Murray was
deceived about the identity of the original leaker.
But the uncertainty creates the possibility that the Democrats
are using a dubious CIA assessment to reverse the outcome of an American presidential election, in effect, making the
CIA party to a preemptive domestic "regime change."
Delayed Autopsy
All of this maneuvering also is delaying the Democratic Party's
self-examination into why it lost so many white working-class voters in normally Democratic strongholds, such as
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Rather than national party leaders taking the blame for
pre-selecting a very flawed candidate and ignoring all the warning signs about the public's resistance to this
establishment choice, Democrats have pointed fingers at almost everyone else – from FBI Director James Comey for briefly
reviving Clinton's email investigation, to third-party candidates who siphoned off votes, to the archaic Electoral
College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote – and now to the Russians.
FBI Director James Comey
While there may be some validity to these various complaints,
the excessive frenzy that has surrounded the still-unproven claims that the Russian government surreptitiously tilted
the election in Trump's favor creates an especially dangerous dynamic.
On one level, it has led Democrats to support Orwellian/
McCarthyistic concepts, such as
establishing
"black lists" for Internet sites
that question Official Washington's "conventional wisdom" and thus are deemed
purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news."
On another level, it cements the Democratic Party as America's
preeminent "war party," favoring an escalating New Cold War with Russia by ratcheting up economic sanctions against
Moscow, and even seeking military challenges to Russia in conflict zones such as Syria and Ukraine.
One of the most dangerous aspects of a prospective Hillary
Clinton presidency was that she would have appointed neocons, such as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria Nuland and her husband, Project for the New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan, to high-level foreign
policy positions.
Though that risk may have passed assuming Clinton's Electoral
College defeat on Monday, Democrats now are excitedly joining the bash-Russia movement, making it harder to envision how
the party can transition back into its more recent role as the "peace party" (at least relative to the extremely hawkish
Republicans).
Trading Places
The potential trading places of the two parties in that regard
– with Trump favoring geopolitical détente and the Democrats beating the drums for more military confrontations – augurs
poorly for the Democrats regaining their political footing anytime soon.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right, on Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by
Robert Parry)
If Democratic leaders press ahead, in alliance with
neoconservative Republicans, on demands for escalating the New Cold War with Russia, they could precipitate a party
split between Democratic hawks and doves, a schism that likely would have occurred if Clinton had been elected but now
may happen anyway, albeit without the benefit of the party holding the White House.
The first test of this emerging Democratic-neocon alliance may
come over Trump's choice for Secretary of State, Exxon-Mobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson, who doesn't exhibit the
visceral hatred of Russian President Vladimir Putin that Democrats are encouraging.
As an international business executive, Tillerson appears to
share Trump's real-politik take on the world, the idea that doing business with rivals makes more sense than conspiring
to force "regime change" after "regime change."
Over the past several decades, the "regime change" approach has
been embraced by both neocons and liberal interventionists and has been implemented by both Republican and Democratic
administrations. Sometimes, it's done through war and other times through "color revolutions" – always under the
idealistic guise of "democracy promotion" or "protecting human rights."
But the problem with this neo-imperialist strategy has been
that it has failed miserably to improve the lives of the people living in the "regime-changed" countries. Instead, it
has spread chaos across wide swaths of the globe and has now even destabilized Europe.
Yet, the solution, as envisioned by the neocons and their
liberal-hawk understudies, is simply to force more "regime change" medicine down the throats of the world's population.
The new "great" idea is to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia by making its economy scream and by funding as many
anti-Putin elements as possible to create the nucleus for a "color revolution" in Moscow.
To justify that risky scheme, there has been a broad expansion
of anti-Russian propaganda now being funded with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money as well as being pushed
by government officials giving off-the-record briefings to mainstream media outlets.
However, as with earlier "regime change" plans, the neocons and
liberal hawks never think through the scenario to the end. They always assume that everything is going to work out fine
and some well-dressed "opposition leader" who has been to their think-tank conferences will simply ascend to the top
job.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
Remember, in Iraq, it was going to be Ahmed Chalabi who was
beloved in Official Washington but broadly rejected by the Iraqi people. In Libya, there has been a parade of
U.S.-approved "unity" leaders who have failed to pull that country together.
In Ukraine, Nuland's choice – Arseniy "Yats is the guy"
Yatsenyuk – resigned amid broad public disapproval earlier this year after pushing through harsh cuts in social
programs, even as the U.S.-backed regime officials in Kiev
continued
to plunder Ukraine's treasury
and misappropriate Western economic aid.
Nuclear-Armed Destabilization
But the notion of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia is even
more hare-brained than those other fiascos. The neocon/liberal-hawk assumption is that Russians – pushed to the brink of
starvation by crippling Western sanctions – will overthrow Putin and install a new version of Boris Yeltsin who would
then let U.S. financial advisers return with their neoliberal "shock therapy" of the 1990s and again exploit Russia's
vast resources.
Indeed, it was the Yeltsin era and its Western-beloved "shock
therapy" that created the desperate conditions before the rise of Putin with his autocratic nationalism, which, for all
its faults, has dramatically improved the lives of most Russians.
Bright lights on Red Square, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)
So, the more likely result from the neocon/liberal-hawk "regime
change" plans for Moscow would be the emergence of someone even more nationalistic – and likely far less stable – than
Putin, who is regarded even by his critics as cold and calculating.
The prospect of an extreme Russian nationalist getting his or
her hands on the Kremlin's nuclear codes should send chills up and down the spines of every American, indeed every human
being on the planet. But it is the course that key national Democrats appear to be on with their increasingly hysterical
comments about Russia.
The Democratic National Committee
issued
a statement
on Wednesday accusing Trump of giving Russia "an early holiday gift that smells like a payoff. It's
rather easy to connect the dots. Russia meddled in the U.S. election in order to benefit Trump and now he's repaying
Vladimir Putin by nominating Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state."
Besides delaying a desperately needed autopsy on why Democrats
did so badly in an election against the also-widely-disliked Donald Trump, the new blame-Russia gambit threatens to hurt
the Democrats and their preferred policies in another way.
If Democrats vote in bloc against Tillerson or other Trump
foreign-policy nominees – demanding that he appoint people acceptable to the neocons and the liberal hawks – Trump might
well be pushed deeper into the arms of right-wing Republicans, giving them more on domestic issues to solidify their
support on his foreign-policy goals.
That could end up redounding against the Democrats as they
watch important social programs gutted in exchange for their own dubious Democratic alliance with the neocons.
Since the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have
courted factions of the neocons, apparently thinking they are influential because they dominate many mainstream op-ed
pages and Washington think tanks. In 1993, as a thank-you gift to the neocon editors of The New Republic for endorsing
him, Clinton appointed neocon ideologue James Woolsey as head of the CIA, one of Clinton's more disastrous personnel
decisions.
But the truth appears to be that the neocons have much less
influence across the U.S. electoral map than the Clintons think. Arguably, their pandering to a clique of Washington
insiders who are viewed as warmongers by many peace-oriented Democrats may even represent a net negative when it comes
to winning votes.
I've communicated with a number of traditional Democrats who
didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because they
feared
she would pursue a dangerous neocon foreign policy
. Obviously, that's not a scientific survey, but the anecdotal
evidence suggests that Clinton's neocon connections could have been another drag on her campaign.
Assessing Russia
I also undertook a limited personal test regarding whether
Russia is the police state that U.S. propaganda depicts, a country yearning to break free from the harsh grip of
Vladimir Putin (although he registers 80 or so percent approval in polls).
Couple walking along the Kremlin wall, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)
During my trip last week to Europe, which included stops in
Brussels and Copenhagen, I decided to take a side trip to Moscow, which I had never visited before. What I encountered
was an impressive, surprisingly (to me at least) Westernized city with plenty of American and European franchises,
including the ubiquitous McDonald's and Starbucks. (Russians serve the Starbucks gingerbread latte with a small ginger
cookie.)
Though senior Russian officials proved unwilling to meet with
me, an American reporter, at this time of tensions, Russia had little appearance of a harshly repressive society. In my
years covering U.S. policies in El Salvador in the 1980s and Haiti in the 1990s, I have experienced what police states
look and feel like, where death squads dump bodies in the streets. That was not what I sensed in Moscow, just a modern
city with people bustling about their business under early December snowfalls.
The police presence in Red Square near the Kremlin was not even
as heavy-handed as it is near the government buildings of Washington. Instead, there was a pre-Christmas festive air to
the brightly lit Red Square, featuring a large skating rink surrounded by small stands selling hot chocolate, toys, warm
clothing and other goods.
Granted, my time and contact with Russians were limited – since
I don't speak Russian and most of them don't speak English – but I was struck by the contrast between the grim images
created by Western media and the Russia that I saw.
It reminded me of how President Ronald Reagan depicted
Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a "totalitarian dungeon" with a militarized state ready to march on Texas, but what I
found when I traveled to Managua was a third-world country still recovering from an earthquake and with a weak security
structure despite the Contra war that Reagan had unleashed against Nicaragua.
In other words, "
perception
management
" remains the guiding principle of how the U.S. government deals with the American people, scaring us with
exaggerated tales of foreign threats and then manipulating our fears and our misperceptions.
As dangerous as that can be when we're talking about Nicaragua
or Iraq or Libya, the risks are exponentially higher regarding Russia. If the American people are stampeded into a New
Cold War based more on myths than reality, the minimal cost could be the trillions of dollars diverted from domestic
needs into the Military Industrial Complex. The far-greater cost could be some miscalculation by either side that could
end life on the planet.
So, as the Democrats chart their future, they need to decide if
they want to leapfrog the Republicans as America's "war party" or whether they want to pull back from the escalation of
tensions with Russia and start addressing the pressing needs of the American people.
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
).
When I think about what the Neocons have done to the Mid
East with their goal to change regimes that we do not approve of it makes me shudder. I wonder why there are not
protesters in the streets like there was in Vietnam Nam. Why isn't there more news agencies protesting our actions?
Why isn't George Bush being tried for war crimes by world or US courts? Trump talks about building up our military. I
hope this will not lead to more conflicts and an increase in our national debt. Why can't there be a larger effort to
print the truth about Putin and Russia? Keep up your efforts to spread the truth. Thank God that Hillary was not
elected.
Refreshing article among all the post Trump election
hysterical propaganda. Particularly telling for me because I have been one of those lured in thinking that a regime
change in Irak could not be worse than what was happening, Kurdes being gased by the hundred of thousand, Israel
being attacked with incentives given by Saddam to terrorists, and soon the French giving him access to their nuclear
program, plus naturally the WMDs . I know now that it was wrong, and that we have enough domestic problems to fix
before trying to interfere into foreign complex cultural grounds.
Yet I think that the biggest element that can explain Clinton's defeat is the massive demographic miscalculation the
Democrats have been making for decades. They came up with this crazy strategy of dividing the American People into
more and more competing minorities, prying electorally on real and invented specialty oppressions, pretending that
only them could champion the oppressed in exchange for their votes. Doing so, they did not see that they were
collaterally creating a class of oppressors, who they would depict, on and on, as bigots, uneducated, bigots and the
soon-to-be-electorally-irrelevant white class.
This strategy backlashed, in a revolt of these "whites", and more importantly showed that what they wanted to
consider as a separate voting class, the "hispanics" voted like "whites" Because they feel and are white!
I was not surprised by this brutal correction of what was only a narrative supporting a populist electoral strategy.
I live in Florida, immersed in these "hispanics", but overall because I am European, I saw from there beginning the
artificiality of the stratagem. Try in Europe to call the Spanish and Portuguese people "hispanic, or to enroll the
Greeks, the Corsican, the Italian in a non white minority, Not only people would laugh, but they would call you a
racist.
Joe L.
,
December 18, 2016 at 8:34 pm
Oh and here is a link to the article in the Daily Mail UK
that Ex-British ambassador, who is now a WikiLeaks operative, claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they
were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers:
What worries me so tremendously is the simplistic barbarism
of these attacks on Russia: pure jaded propaganda, which, sadly and unbelievably enough, too many people are too
eager to swallow.
Rob
,
December 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm
The surest sign that the NYT and the rest of the MSM are in
the bag with regard to the "blame Russia" campaign is their failure even to mention (at least to my knowledge) Craig
Murray's claim that he received the DNC info from a leaker inside the organization. This claim may or not be true,
but it is at least worth reporting and considering as a possible explanation for how Wikileaks came to possess the
material. That said, the manner in which Wikileaks released the information so as to maximize damage to the Clinton
campaign makes me wonder about the mental health of Julian Assange. Four years of confinement to a room can mess with
your mind.
Not only the story Craig Murray but how about the story
of Podesta having willingly surrendered his password to a (the) hacker. If the contents of a hack are true, what's
the hullabaloo all about.
Professor T
,
December 17, 2016 at 11:30 am
Thanks for this article. I never believed this crap about
the Russians hacking the election. The U.S. Election process is a sham which disenfranchises voters across the board.
I believe that both parties have their hands in these elections right down to the Board of Elections and electoral
colleges in each of these states. When Bernie Sanders ran in NY, I believe the Demorcratic Party and the Board of
Elections especially in NYC made it hard for him to get elected. All of a sudden in Brooklyn registered voters were
not found, like 125,000 voters . Really? NY was a state also named with Southern states in the 60's as a state that
disenfranchised voters. I am not surprised. I am not a fan of Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. They definitely have
not improved the lives of African Americans or any other Americans. Only the lives of those within their inner
circle. They are exploiters to the highest degree. She lost because Americans rejected her and her ideals. They said
enough. We don't need another Clinton in the White House to do Part 2 of how to disenfranchise and destabilize
American people. I am not a Trump fan either, but if he won the election fair and scare I can't argue with that. The
Democratic and Republican parties are not in touch with the American people. The election process needs to be
reformed where if you don't have money, you don' t have influence. They are corrupt on both sides. It is pay for play
and I am sure that is not how the forefathers intended this to be or maybe it was .. Time to clean house and that is
on both sides. Whether they are White, Black, or any other persuasion, they are corrupt. Rome is Burning!!
R. Rivera
,
December 16, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Russia may have tried to influence the election, it might
be a frame job, or it might be a collaborator in this election. It does not matter. I suspect the election really was
rigged ( the fbi's comey did his part ) but it was rigged in favor of trump
When I see someone pointing and yelling "crook!" as trump
did, I always suspect the yeller (trump) is the one causing the problem. Remember gingrich complaining about
clinton's morality and pointing the finger with disgust? He should have resigned since he was cheating on mrs.
gingrich AND kept it a secret while on his moral crusade. I have not been wrong yet when I see this behavior.
The cia with a suspected history of interring with other
nations is complaining about russia's interference? We must be in trouble.
This was not an election. It was a coup to elect the new
puppet president trump. We need to expose the puppeteers.
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Obama today: basically all the messes, conflicts, disputes,
wars and so on that he has created in the world, and the reason Hillary wasn't given "her turn," are OUR fault
because we can't accept the lies he promulgates on the mainstream media and we insist on going to alternate sources.
And, of course, extrapolating that logic will justify commiting an act of war against Russia, which he promises to
do.
How can we get this guy outta there before he blows up the
planet? Trump must take to the airwaves to defend himself against the accusations or possibly be removed in a coup
being orchestrated by this sullen hater. This is spiraling downhill fast and, from the comments on internet forums,
war fever is in the air, proving Obama is more dangerous than any "fake news" outlet.
Michael K.
,
December 16, 2016 at 4:29 pm
There is an uncomfortable truth about those who led the Old
Bolsheviks and their b;loody terrors, who looted Russia under Yeltsin, and who leads the neoconservative core of the
anti-Russia pundits:
They were and are disproportionately Jewish, but we are not
supposed to note it, lest this curious FACT "offend" someone who is offended by . the truth.
So, we can't talk about a major [though not necessarily
predominant] element of who is leading the anti-Russian rhetoric in DC and media so let's pretend it isn't playing a
role here.
Why are we so concerned (as per Pres. Obama's press
conference this morning) about the unproved possibility of a foreign power's (like Russia, for example) influence
(if true, it was positive) on our election, when Israel, through AIPAC and the American Jewish Communuty, etal.,
ALREADY HAS a far greater influence (especially being negative) on our elections. Another example of an egregious
double-standard being applied to Israel. In fact, Israel is just sort of a co-partner here in the U.S.. Why is a
foreign-born, Israeli dual-national, former Governor of the Bank of Israel, Stanley Fisher, the 2nd man at the
Federal Reserve?Why were we pretending that Jonathon Pollard was a spy? What is the average percentage of votes in
the Congress on legislation relating to Israel? To which country do we give more Foreign Aid than any other
country even though "Aid" denotes, not connotes, that the country is "needy". To which country did we just sign a
$38 billion (10-year) Charity package, which purports to be Military, but is highly fungible, meaning that can be
used for the financing of settlements or whatever the f**k they want to use it for, like, haredim welfare. Bottom
line:President Obama and all the Neo-Con Russia bashers are first class hypocrites, trying to exorcize (or
exercise) an historic grudge against the Russian Tsars. Why is this country being pushed into wars that do not
concern us, but rather a country with a wall around it that wishes to expand its borders, because our Congressmen
and President are owned by them?
Brilliant article and some brilliant comments. We live now
in a very small world and if you can't see your connection to your neighbour wherever and whoever that may be you are
not awake. I drive a car so I have to think about that and notwithstanding the necessity of that I have to think
about the bigger picture and maybe next year it should be an electric car , or no car . This whole fabrication about
the Russians simply isn't washing with us common people, so the perception management of not just the Democrats , but
politicians in general is so wide of the mark after Trump and Brexit they just don't know what to do. They thought
they had it all wrapped up and then along came the Internet ..
sanford sklansky
,
December 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm
A good article and maybe demonizing Russia for the wrong
reasons. But lets not forget that Putin is running a kleptocracy. There is no freedom of speech. Certainly no paper
that can speak out against him or the Russian government. The anti gay laws are terrible. You were only in Russia for
a short time. I don't know if you can gauge much just from walking around Red Square. And while there didn't appear
to be a big police presence I am guessing it was there and you were unaware. I am assuming that your passport says
you are a reporter. No doubt some one was probably watching where you were going and who you might be talking to.
James lake
,
December 17, 2016 at 3:25 pm
Wow this is the arrogant way of thinking that is at the
root of world problems
What has their form of govt got to do with you.???
The Russian people have shown over the years that they don't take any nonsense and if the feel their govt is not
working for them they will make themselves heard.
K. Geebee
,
December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Is this article a joke? So this guys walks around Moscow
for a day speaking no Russian and is able to 'deduce' that Russia is like any Western democracy, with Putin its
misunderstood, magnanimous ruler. And this allows him to claim to know better than Russian dissenters or Western
journalists who actually speak Russian and understand its propaganda. No wonder this site was listed as a Russian
stooge. And all the commenters praising his acumen (he went to a Russian starbucks, wow!) is even funnier
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 4:00 pm
You assholes from Langley here taking names or
something? Go tell your sycophantic acting boss Michael Morell that he's not funny, he's psychotic.
Josh Laudermilk
,
December 17, 2016 at 4:18 am
@Realist,
Michael Morell was another shadowy figure that was
insistent that Hillary Clinton deserves to be anointed POTUS and leader of "the Free World" (only the USA is
free, not Finland, Sweden, Netherlands or anywhere else knows what 'democracy' really is). Did you know that
Mike Morell actually said we should be killing Russians in Ukraine? He openly said that. When I heard him say
that, as opposed to something I would have said, like "I want Russia to join NATO. I want to have joint
military operations with Russia. I want to have a joint counter-terrorist command. We can and should be
fighting Wahhabi terrorists together."
Mr. Morell openly approves of murdering Russians
wholesale, whenever they are found outside the borders of their country (which Mike Morell wishes would recede
even further, to shrink Russia as much as possible). There were no consequences for his genocidal and violent
hate speech, which I would expect from a Salafist minister, not a former Acting Director of the nation's
premier 'intelligence' agency. The word intelligence being used in the loosest manner as all possible.
Realist, whoever you are, why should I or anyone
trust the CIA about this past election? Seriously, the CIA is the master at electoral rigging, psychological
warfare, deception, counter-operations, and murder. For decades, the CIA rigged the elections of Japan so that
the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP being the CIA approved polity in Japan) would win ever single time. And the
LDP has ruled the county almost uninterruptedly, with an exception when, for a short time, the opposition party
(the Democratic Party) had a majority before being brought down by corruption scandals.
Or what about all the election rigging that the CIA
performed in Italy during the 1950ies? I could go on, but the CIA has a long history of "hacking" elections and
controlling the polity of other nations, through rigging, murder and coups.
Realist
,
December 17, 2016 at 4:22 pm
That's why I mentioned Morell rather than Brennan.
You caught my drift. Good.
Jerry Falkenstein
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Just wondering, Is the world better off now or changed for
the better since the a-holes started the war with Iraq?
Drew Hunkins
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:47 pm
It's just so bananas, it's hard to put into words how so
much of the mainstream press is lapping up and disseminating the drivel that "Putin/Russian gov't hacked the election
to tilt it to Trump!" The hysteria is strikingly similar to what went on in 2003 during the run-up to the Iraq war
debacle. Repetition is hardening into orthodoxy in some quarters and smart liberals should know better than to give
these insane charges the veneer of credibility.
It's crucial to note that what's been going on over the
last month or so is that there's a serious battle being waged amongst our ruling class behind the scenes (sometimes
referred to as the "Deep State"). From what I can make of it, on one side sits Trump, Big Oil and elements of the FBI
versus virtually all of the establishment mass media and press, DNC insiders, much of the CIA, and elements of the
Zionist power configuration and Saudi terror network who want war on Iran – not market driven empire building with
Iran which is what Tillerson's likely to propose. Of course another element of the Zionist power configuration is
quite pleased that Trump's appointing Palestinian land grabbers too.
This internecine battle being waged between our elites is
incredibly fascinating to witness. Of course that it has the potential to spiral out of control is undoubtedly
worrisome and means true progressives and lefties have their work cut out for them over the coming months and years.
Josh Stern
,
December 16, 2016 at 2:22 pm
Deep State is true – two sides in the Deep State is not
true. Is the FBI really opposite to the CIA – no, the FBI is the CIA security force. It has never prosecuted any
CIA related "crime" except for whistleblower leaks. Why doesn't Trump "side" make the point that the news story in
the leaks was a fraudulent – and probably criminal – sabotaging of Sanders' campaign, which the DNC is hoping its
members will forget about? That is very damaging to the DNC why are all the Republicans so quiet about it?
War/security state money benefits from war or heightened
readiness for war. It is constantly looking for boogeyman threats to justify more spending on the security state.
No matter that US produces over 95% of the world's weapons. No matter that US defense budget is greater than next
7 states combined. We need more of that $$$ security. Lot of threats don't you know. Russia – it is alleged
without proof – might sneak in and tell us about how corrupt our 2 political parties are. Can't have that.
President Obama is just caving in all over the place like a
blob of jello (no excuses for mixing metaphors here when the issue is so egregious)-too many instances to even
itemize here, let alone comment on. One incident, though, I remember seems to symbolize his lamentable state of mind:
when he pulled up to the welcoming (some welcome) stand in Beijing several months ago. Surprise: no red carpet like
the other Heads of State. A deliberate slight? Absolutely. How did he react. Like a President of the United States?
Absolutely not! He dropped the stairs that AF One carries in its nose for just such occasions and sortied as if
nothing had happened. In fact, what had happened is that he had sloughed off the insult like a Black man because he
couldn't do anything about it, when he should have sat tight until a red carper appeared, or left, and the United
States had suffered a huge hit to its prestige. Childish? I don't think so. If he had stayed put, that red carpet
would have appeared. So the problem is that Barack Obama does not represent the people he purports to, because he
cannot identify with them. Bottom line: this country cannot have another President from a minority group. let alone a
disadvantaged one. We have now had our Black president, just like we had our Black mayor of NYC. It won't happen
again, but it's good that it happened once to show why it won't work, and hopefully will put a brake on the
multicultural hype. We would wager that the Jews would never be so stupid as to allow one of theirs to be our
President.
I would like to know many posters on this site support
this racist rant. If you do support it please post your support of it along with any other minorities you hate.
Consider this recent statement by Obama concerning
"hacking": 'We need to take action and we will at a time and place of our choosing'
It just does not come more completely brainless than this.
And, given his powerful position, more irresponsible.
Take revenge?
For what?
For someone's assertion, unsupported by a scrap of proof?
An assertion by one political appointee at CIA who is not
supported by any of the sister intelligence agencies or any physical evidence whatsoever? Even the otherwise pathetic
John Kerry has backed off confirming this rubbish.
An assertion whose obvious motive is to get back at the
winning candidate, someone you don't like?
This sick man, Obama – a failure in virtually everything he
has attempted as President from domestic policy to foreign relations, and a man who has killed hundreds of thousands
of innocents abroad, too – is also trying to get back at the government which thwarted his bad intentions in Syria
and in Ukraine.
That government embarrassed him before the entire world in
his pursuit of ill-considered policies.
Of course, he is trying to get back at Trump because Obama
knows Trump is going to quickly extinguish most of what he has done, his sad little pile of stuff, his so-called
legacy.
Well, here's Obama's real legacy, making threats and
calling names, threatening innocent people with an abuse of power. Of course, I think we can all agree that while
profoundly stupid, this behavior of Obama seems almost elevated compared to his construction and oversight of an
entire machinery for extrajudicial killing in many lands.
I am beginning to think Obama has gone mad, just adding to
all the other deficiencies of his character and personality. Can he not see how ridiculous he is making charges and
threats like this? Apparently not, which is a strong indicator of irrationality.
Here is a 2016 version of drunken old Senator Joe McCarthy
waving handfuls of blank papers he calls lists and threatening what he calls traitors in the American government.
Only the 2016 version sits in the Oval Office, and he has access to the nuclear launch codes.
This is deeply concerning behavior from a man in such a
position.
And if the mainline press were not totally biased towards
the war party of the neocons and its defeated candidate, the most corrupt and vicious person ever to run for
President, it would be saying so, not giving credibility to blubbering insanity by covering it as though it were
sound speech.
The latest breathlessly broadcast news from CNN, BBC and
all over print media this morning and without one shred of proof presented I might add) is that Putin himself signed
off on the interference in the American Presidential election.
This was to be expected following the defeat of the CIA
funded, trained and armed Terrorists in Syria. to attempt to lay the blame on anything else is to attribute the
ability of the American Government and it´s multitude of intelligence agencies with an attention span that is longer
than a single news cycle. Every setback must be met immediately with a deluge of hysterical propaganda against
someone in a foreign country, the current enemy du jour being President Putin.
In short, the !/10 of 1% Elites in the US did not get the
coronation of the President they wanted. Now they are more than willing to take the country to the very brink of
nuclear war to make sure that the electorate gets back in line and marches to the Elite´s tune. For sure they will
not risk the Hamptons in a nuclear war, but will push the envelope right to it´s breaking point. The great unwashed
in the USA has risen and now must be pushed back into their former prostate position, and begging for handouts from
their criminal Elite. For the Elites, their worse fear has been realized.
Drew Hunkins
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:41 am
Mr. Kuhn, you make incredibly astute points.
I can't believe this wave of propaganda we're witnessing. And millions of my fellow American citizens will lap all
this up.
Thank you, Vladimir Putin for having helped defeat Hillary
Clinton and installed Donald Trump in the White House, and, by the way, congratulations, for having had the
effrontery to protect your own national security and taken back Crimea from the Neo-Con State Department-backed
coup-plotters. We support you, our Christian brothers. Please continue with your sensible policies.
The Real American People
AG
,
December 16, 2016 at 10:44 am
Thank you, Robert and Consortium News. As a Russian born,
now Russian-American citizen, I am left aghast by the self-serving incitement of the media. Your reporting is a an
island of reason and reassurance for me, as I watch New York Times, NPR and the rest tie up my homeland to the
whipping post.
I return to Russia nearly every other year to both my rural
hometown and metropolitan Moscow. Moscow is the only place in the world where I was served a $9 cup of coffee. Russia
is and has been flourishing for decades. For a long time, Russians were interested in the United States and
appreciated the western model of capitalism. Various civil groups have been organizing exchanges between the two
countries with great fervor. From ballet schools in New York City to forestry crews on Lake Baikal, Russians were
eager for a warmer and open relationship with the United States.
There is a Russia beyond Putin that few dare to speak of.
It is the country I know. It is the country where school children put on monthly plays and begin to recite poetry in
first grade. It is the country where women receive generous government sponsored child-rearing subsidies to stay home
longer. It is a country where those mothers then mourn, and have been mourning, the tens of millions of soldiers who
never came home during the World Wars as well the modern, bloody political games with neighboring Chechnya, Ukraine
and now, Syria.
Russians are, too, spoon-fed typical nationalist
propaganda. Many, including myself, are now wondering about the US and its intentions. Many didn't like the impact of
sanctions on the price of groceries and gas. Russians don't understand why America all of a sudden hates them so
much. Many mothers are scared. They don't want another world war.
Is this all in the name of democracy and human rights? As
someone who works with homeless youth and adults in rural New England, I've got a lot to say about that.
Thanks again, Robert.
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:15 am
I can see how you would be confused by the actions of
your new country against your native land. It was unconscionable how Obama's state department set Ukrainians
against Russians in a coup meant to expand NATO and the EU, to snatch the naval base at Sevastopol away from
Russia, and to station missiles pointed at Moscow only a few hundred miles away. The deadly putsch, the fire
bombings of Odessa and the rocket attacks on the Donbass from Kiev were all totally uncalled for simply because
Yanukovich decided that Putin had offered a better financial deal than did the EU and the IMF. But America is very
proficient at demonizing any leader or government they want out of the way. I'm surprised you haven't come to hate
America for persecuting your people. I know that I hate what we do to numerous other countries, and I hate
heartless bastards like Obama and Clinton who make it all happen without the slightest compunctions. America owes
Russia a big apology for what we have been doing to that country, but, knowing Americans, never expect one. We are
the most self-righteous, "persecuted," paranoid, entitled, loud-mouthed, arrogant people on the planet but far
from exceptional. The people who are exceptional are those whom we tread on and yet prevail.
Bill Bodden
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:45 pm
It is the country where school children put on monthly
plays and begin to recite poetry in first grade.
How about the teachers? Do they carry guns to school so
they can have a shootout with some crackpot having easy access to guns? Or, is this another area where Russia lags
blissfully behind the US?
Josh Laudermilk
,
December 16, 2016 at 9:55 am
To my fellow Americans,
I am begging you, ALL of you, whatever your political
stripe, whatever your social status, whoever you are: Female, Black, Native American, Jewish, Gay,
Transsexual/Transgender (and fuck yeah, I support all minorities and all peoples, including race, sex and gender).
Whoever the fuck you are; DO NOT fall for this Russophobic, Anti-Russian bullshit. I beg of you. This is a concerted
effort by the West to demonize Russia and paint Vlad Putin as a James Bond-esque villain. They want you to swallow
this shit up whole, so you will be distracted from the fact that your overseers (the Powers That Be, the political
and financial elite) continue to blight your lives as they exploit you and you languish in suffering.
Russia is not to blame. Vlad Putin, whatever one makes of
him, is not to blame. And look, I don't like Putin for a variety of reasons. He has continued the Corporatocracy set
up by Boris Yeltsin and 'the Family'. He continues to support a particularly cruel form of capitalism. He also
supports what could be called Eastern Orthodox fundamentalism. He conflates homosexuality with
pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia. But we should not go to war with Russia or make an enemy out of Russia. Vlad
Putin is not to blame for Western aggression.
Don't allow our leaders to sell this message. Tell them, we
aren't buying and we are not going to creep into a New Cold War, let alone support sending the sons and daughters of
other people to their deaths in a hypothetical war with Russia.
President Barack Obama is a fucking failure, the failure of
all failures, as are his cohorts including Hillary Clinton. President Barack Obama's legacy is not reforming
healthcare, assassinating Osama bin Laden, trade deals or ending the occupation of the Republic of Iraq. No, that's
not what his legacy will be, regardless of how many Nobel Prizes he nets during and after his presidency. Nope, his
legacy will be the eternal expansion of drone warfare. Barack Obama's legacy is drones. Creating a narrative about
Russia (and specifically Vlad Putin) is a distraction, a real red herring, to draw attention away from President
Obama's truly (and epically) sinister legacy. It also draws attention away from the fact that 51% of our country is
in poverty, and the global situation is even more grim.
The West has gone absolutely batshit over the impulses of
change, blaming everything on Russia. It is an understatement to say that Russia (and Vlad Putin, specifically) are
the scapegoat of the West. If I slip on a banana peel, I can blame it on Putin and the political elites, the Powers
That Be, will reinforce my accusation and applaud me for saying it.
Russia has been blamed for Hillary Clinton's loss of the US
election, Russia is blamed for the Brexit vote, Russia is blamed for the German election. The German authorities are
saying that the reason Angela Merkel had a less than stellar performance in the recent federal elections is because
of Russia. Do you have a toothache? If you do, it's Russia. Vlad Putin, we are told, has control over the "free
elections" of the world.
This is hysteria, it's mental illness on a global scale.
When rulers and their ruling parties or factions suffer any loss, in the polls or in popularity, it's Vlad Putin's
fault, so we are told. They are hammering this universal "it's Russia's fault" meme as the new State sponsored
ideology. Anyone who even doubts it in the least aspect is considered treasonous.
I shouldn't have to tell you, Russia did not hack the US
election for Donald Trump. Russia did not hack the UK election for Brexit. Russia did not hack German voting machines
so that Angela Merkel's total percentage would be less than projected.
The truth is much less like a Cold War dream fever dream.
Yet our society controllers are trying to create the "justification" for a New Cold War and the latest Red Scare. All
this nonsense about Russians rigging the election, from the very people who scoffed at and heavily criticized Herr
Trump for suggesting an election could be rigged, something the Democrats said was "impossible", including El
Presidente Barack Obama. The anti-Russian craze is truly terrifying to me.
Remember what President Barack Obama said around the time
that Jill Stein began working feverishly to throw the election for Hillary Clinton (someone she pretended to
despise)? He said there was no evidence of election tampering and that he had confidence in the integrity of the
election results.
A few weeks later, because he's a lying son of a bitch, he
completely contradicts himself and reinforces the idea of Russian interference and hacking in the election.
Obama is a LIAR!
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 10:20 am
Another piece of news (to me, at any rate): Obama just
allowed the continuation of economic sanctions against Iran recently passed overwhelmingly in both houses of
congress to become law. Ending the sanctions was supposed to be our part of the treaty with Iran for their promise
never to develop nuclear weapons. This obviously reneges on that agreement and proves to Iran that America's word
is worth shit. Yes, the congress had plenty of votes to over ride any veto that Obama may have placed upon the
bill, but the craven snake should have at least gone through the motions to show Iran that HIS personal word was
sincere, even if his country was duplicitous. Instead he walked away from partners in a deal that took years to
craft because of some mindless spiteful pressure from congress at the very end of his term. The man will fight
with no one except Putin and Russia (who are easy targets in Russophobic America) because he has no principles and
no courage. The sooner he slinks off into the shadows the better. Get out of the people's house, you rat. This
makes me as angry as the revenge he has just vowed against Russia for purportedly "hacking the election," in spite
of zero evidence.
Josh Laudermilk
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:01 pm
@Realist,
Thanks for letting me know about this. It doesn't
surprise me at all. The situation is taking a turn for the worst. Have you seen the news of President Barack
Obama promising to take "action" against Russia? It hurts me that the United States is so unbelievably hostile
and belligerent. We should be allies with Russia, it's a great country and a great people. If I were POTUS, I
would actively be courting the Russian people (not just their administration or President), reaching out and
appealing to them. I would even love to have Russia join NATO. I see Russia as a friend and I'm speaking as an
American citizen. I cannot understand why so many Americans are obsessed with casting Russia as the eternal
villain. I can only surmise that it is a core tenant of 'neoconservatism' that an enemy must always exist to
explain away the costly and ever growing military-industrial complex.
There was no Russian hack. Hillary Clinton will blame
everyone but herself for losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She is so corrupt. President Barack Obama
is so corrupt. They claim Vladimir Putin and his cabinet are corrupt, they claim that Russia is a "mafia state"
and Putin is "the Godfather" of this "mafia state". Those saying this, at the highest levels, are the most
corrupt in all the world. I think the Democratic Party is one of the most corrupt parties in the world today,
perhaps even in all of history.
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 4:27 pm
Yes, Josh, as I reported from Antiwar.com last
night, Obama is planning a strike, a cyberattack, literally an act of war against Russia based on unfounded
allegations.
"U.S. intelligence officials believe that Putin
*may* (emphasis mine) have directly ordered the hack, according to NBC. On Thursday, NBC reported that
government sources said that the Obama administration decided against responding to Russia before the
election for fear of a cyber-war. The White House also did not want to appear to be intervening in the
election and believed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would win."
This is just so much BS. He kills people as part
of his routine and he didn't want to "appear to be intervening in the election" because he though Hillary
would win. In other words, he didn't think something that *may* not have happened at all was worth starting
a world war over. Since Hillary lost (without proof that it was due to ANY hackers, let alone "Putin's"
hackers) now it's suddenly okay to threaten an act of war.
I hope that Russia does not underestimate the
treachery of this street punk and have their finger on their own button to retaliate against yet more naked
American aggression. This is a straightforward threat of major violence, the least that Russia should be
doing is taking the case to the United Nations. If Obama does this, you can kiss the amenities of
civilisation goodbye, including electricity and the internet if he does something insanely rash like
crashing Russia's power grid, which will be avenged, maybe via an EMP over the entire East Coast.
eric
,
December 19, 2016 at 4:53 am
Russia want to kick our terrorist out of Kosovo
twenty years ago now Russia kicked our terrorists out Aelopo . You can't blame our president for being mad
he wanted our head choppers to win . They didn't and we can't do anything about it .
Russia did not hack German voting machines so that
Angela Merkel's total percentage would be less than projected.
But the US National Security Agency tapped into her
personal phone, one of countless similar incidents completely ignored by the talking heads and print hacks
demonizing Putin and Russia.
Paul Fretheim
,
December 16, 2016 at 9:52 am
I wanted to add a few more things about bring in Russia
last year. The young man who was my guide in Moscow was openly gay and lives with his partner in an apartment they
share in one of the famous Stalinscraper buildings in central Moscow. He found the idea that there was oppression of
gays completely inaccurate. He said their may be discrimination in remote rural areas, but certainly not in the
cities. We talked openly about this in a cafe not far from the Russian History Museum on Red Square, which is the
gailly illuminated building in one of the photos you shared.
I was in St. Petersburg for one week. My hotel was just two
blocks from Palace Square on Nevsky Prospect. I did not see a single homeless person the entire time I was there. I
saw police only a time or two, and I walked around a lot. The police walk in pairs. They do not have guns, but each
just has one small walkie talkie on their belt, in strict contrast to American cops who look like they just walked
out of a Star Wars movie.
I did see one older woman on Nevsky selling mittens she had
knitted from a cardboard box.
Joe Tedesky
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:03 am
Hillary could lose a lot of support if the truth about
Russian gays ever came out here is a link to a report that gives statistics and talks about the gay situation in
Russia.
Russia does not sell marriage liciense to gay couples
So the U.S says that oppression . I think we voted marriage was between one man and one women but that was
oppression
here and made illegal Even California voted the same way Russia has it Really no human rights in Russia .
Sounds pretty bad no human rights just terrrible
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 9:46 am
Obama has totally lost his mind. I just read this on the
Antiwar.com site. Speaking on NPR, he blamed Putin personally and totally for "hacking the American election" and
vows a "retaliatory strike," which the article claimed may be a complete knock-out of Russia's electrical grid.
Excerpt from story: "Irrespective of the lack of evidence
and despite nebulous motives, however, President Obama did vow that the US would carry out some form of retaliatory
move against Russia, saying he would do so 'at a time and place of our own choosing.' "
This hateful maniac is threatening to start World War 3,
while at the same time trying to prevent the president-elect from taking office using baseless allegations of hacking
to fuel a coup. What mechanism does the constitution provide for stopping a madman? The coup to slip Hillary into
office is bad enough, but this threat of an attack on a sovereign nuclear power without extensive justification
beyond his personal animus towards Putin, including irrefutable public documentation of all charges, is simply beyond
all reason, it is naked barbarism. This man needs to be medicated and put in restraints while crazy Joe Biden serves
out the last month of his term, and if Biden persists in the madness, we move on to Paul Ryan.
Remember when Obama and the whore went off by themselves
for a day or two? Did you wonder what they were plotting? Now you know!
Bill Bodden
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:30 pm
I caught something a little while ago when I was
half-listening to CNN. Apparently, Putin or some Russian official told Obama to put up some evidence or shut up. A
little dose of straight talk in a program otherwise devoted to speculation and insinuation.
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 8:46 pm
Here's one report of the very real, rather annoyed
response.
Apparently, many high level officials in the Russian
government are speaking out publicly on the matter, including Putin's Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov,
Russian Foreign Ministery spokesperson Maria Zakharova, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. All call it
an outrageous accusation and put up or shut up with regard to the non-existent evidence.
It's amazing what Obama thinks he can slip past world
observers. The American people? They're used to being lied to and never seem to catch on, which is what Obama
and Clinton hope results in an overturned election–regardless of the motives they profess (just wanting to know
the truth, yeah sure!). Based on comments dropped all over the internet, it looks like Obama's lies are gaining
wide currency (except here), even on comic strip forums. Just gratuitous Russian bashing all over the place.
How dare they steal our election!!! Never the more pertinent, "just how did they expect that longshot to
succeed?" Or, "I'll believe it when I see the evidence, not just a proclamation."
RedApple
,
December 16, 2016 at 7:27 am
I am of a Eastern European background who has grown up in
the west. I saw the country I was born in destroyed by the US and my nephews nearly killed b bombs outside the areas
CNN reported. I have lived with the lies the west spinned about the Balkans for 20 years. It broke my father and he
never really go over it. In all the years that followed I never hated and thought my daughter not to hate. Now I see
the same being to done to Russia. The people of eastern europe have not forgotten and this time its is really far
worse. The hatred that has been festering in eastern Europe against the EU and the US is dangerous. Has the US become
so blind. This could easily become very dangerous and I hope articles such as this one will help the people of
America understand why this Russia bashing has to stop..
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 10:38 am
Yes, it was Hillary's husband who bombed your homeland
as he took NATO out for a test spin after converting what was meant to be solely a defensive alliance against the
Soviet Union (which no longer existed) into a useful new tool of American military aggression all over the globe.
Maybe he thought that Serbo-Croatian sounded or was spelled a lot like Russian. Dubya totally confused Afghanistan
and Iraq with the extinct Soviet Union, and Obomber (with Hillary riding shotgun) must have thought that Libya,
Syria and Yemen were surely populated by Soviets. I think the great peace-maker (Nobel Prize and all that) droned
Pakistan and Somalia without the help of NATO but, you know, if the godfather asks a favor, those countries had
better do what they are told. It's how we role: I think the Cosa Nostra is our model.
Bill Bodden
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm
During that time NATO came close to triggering a war
with Russia. Russian forces moved into an area to protect some Slavs. US General Wesley Clark ordered British
General Sir Michael Jackson to oppose the Russians. Jackson refused saying he was not about to start a war with
Russia.
Bankrupt Greek
,
December 16, 2016 at 7:00 am
The Clinton family is by far the most hated US politician
family in the Balkan Region. (with the Bush one coming close second)
Clintons completely destabilized the South East
Mediterranean creating a whole vacuum of Islamic extremism, failed states and botched bilateral relations. Bill
Clinton completely destroyed the Greek Foreign policy by putting pro-Israel governments in the Greek leadership and
evaporating 40 years of excellent relations with the Arab Countries which were receiving a lot of our exports in
exchange for oil deals and shipping benefits (Egypt letting Greek ships pass through Suez without customs).
I sincerely hope something changes cause atm US has
completely lost the trust of the world imho .
Josh Stern
,
December 16, 2016 at 6:46 am
"If Murray's story is true, it raises several alternative
scenarios: that the U.S. intelligence community's claims about a Russian hack are false; that Russians hacked the
Democrats' emails for their own intelligence gathering without giving the material to WikiLeaks; or that Murray was
deceived about the identity of the original leaker."
A 4th possible scenario is that it benefits Putin to play
the Iron Sheik character alongside the CIA's Hulk Hogan In other words, promoting conflict and raising the statist
security profile benefits Putin in Russia for the same reasons you notice that it benefits the CIA & Pentagon in the
US, so they play along together .."Oh that is great fun game we having with phony American wrestlers". I mean, why
exactly are the US & Russia both supporting the incendiary destruction of Syria? In 2010+ it is no longer strategic
to begin with & there will be nothing left of it by the time they both get through. But lots of arms
makers/contractors/etc. moved product,. and political foes were sidelined. In the Ukraine, the CIA staged a coup in
2013-14 and Putin got a little piece too. Iran got money and nuclear fuel, and Putin got some biz there too. It looks
like a thriving partnership.
Michael Morrissey
,
December 16, 2016 at 6:00 am
Question for all of you lawyers and (ex?) insiders: Is not
what the CIA has done here not only reprehensible (etc.) but illegal? I hope the first swamp Trump drains is Langley,
and all its tributaries like the NYT and WaPo.
Akech
,
December 16, 2016 at 5:18 am
How come these super intelligent findings on Russians
hacking DNC and John Podesta e-mails were not applicable to Hillary's private server ?
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 3:44 am
I never fail to be amazed by the treachery of Hillary
Clinton. Being a merciful person, a few days ago I was relieved when Donald Trump admitted that his threats to
prosecute Hillary for numerous crimes were just so much campaign rhetoric. Nobody likes to see an infirm old lady
locked up for the rest of her life. But the way her supporters from both parties have been going after Trump's hide
by making very serious but baseless allegations against Putin and then conflating them with Trump is truly vicious
and the epitome of attempted self-aggrandizement at the expense of the country's well-being. Assuming Trump is
allowed to take the oath of office in the aftermath of these broad spectrum attacks through elected politicians,
federal appointees and the media, I would suggest he change his plans for Hillary, Bill and whomever else (John
McCain, John Brennen and Michael Morrel, for starters) has been involved in this attempted coup. Seriously, they are
attacking the next head of state, if not to remove him then to emasculate him as a leader. Isn't it the old saying
that if you attack the king you must kill him or forfeit your own life? Hillary is apparently going for broke. She
deserves the gallows.
Joe Tedesky
,
December 16, 2016 at 10:57 am
If ever there was a way to measure bad Hillary just flew
past Richard Nixon at supersonic speed.
Winston
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:00 am
Murray more reliable and a real truth teller. He's not a
careerist. He has ethics.
The envoy who said too much
One minute he was Our Man in Tashkent, the next he was a major embarrassment for the Foreign Office. Craig Murray,
ambassador to Uzbekistan, talks to Nick Paton Walsh about his turbulent year
The envoy who said too much
One minute he was Our Man in Tashkent, the next he was a major embarrassment for the Foreign Office. Craig Murray,
ambassador to Uzbekistan, talks to Nick Paton Walsh about his turbulent year
Mr Perry don't fall for the establishment diatribe. "putin
autocratic style and all its faults" . Follow up ur statements with verifiable facts . Or else u r just part of the
modern journalistic problem of western fake news. Still i concur with the majority of ur article. The Russian
federation is run just like the west. It is a federated state and is a capitalist economy. Has a federal bank has
democratically elected officials at the DUMA . Putin resuscitated Russia, and has brought some needed law and order .
Post USSR russia resembled the US during the mob years of the 20 and 30's. Now their is a citizenry who take pride
and responsibility of their civic duty, crime has been reduced and graft and corruption being hit on from all levels
of russian society.
Realist
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm
Exceptionally well written exposé of the madness permeating
most of the factions wielding clout in this country by a professional journalist par excellence. An equally
perceptive addendum from businessman Gary Hare. If more people were aware of the described realities, perhaps we'd
stop digging our own graves, or at least slow down to question our actions.
Paul Fretheim
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:49 pm
Robert I visited Moscow and St. Petersburg about one year
ago. You should visit St. Petersbug. While Moscow is nice and drastically changed from when I was there 30 years ago,
St. Petersburg, where Putin spent years as deputy mayor, is even nicer. My guide and chauffer could not understand
why the US wanted to try and hurt them with sanctions. They agreed that they liked and respected President Putin and
that they could never be influenced by the "silly" sanctions that "might raise the price if tomatoes ten kopecks."
Kalen
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:21 pm
Rare but needed voice of sanity in this world of
McCarthyite hysteria. Will electors hear this voice and understand that by "flipping" their votes they a liable for
participating in a form coup d'etat i.e. letting rough government security agency, CIA and their secret unsupported
by facts accusations to change the outcome of the however undemocratic and flawed electoral system we have, a system
that gave us Trump inadvertently or not, with huge contribution from Hillary's unquenched hubris and disregard for
American economic reality.
Mahatma
,
December 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm
Placing nuclear weapons on the border of Russia is not "the
new cold war" get over it and stop with this misleading, at best, phrase. This is not 1955. The circumstances are
different now, this is about US demand for Global Full Spectrum Domination – Project 2020. There is nothing cold
about it except the cold calculations of nuclear war. The Pentagon talks of low yield half ton nuclear weapons being
"usable".
If the hawks gain control, war with Russia and China are
inevitable in the coming decade. The Imperial US will not stop I doubt Trump can stop them.
David F
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:21 am
"If the hawks gain control, war with Russia and China
are inevitable in the coming decade. The Imperial US will not stop I doubt Trump can stop them."
I believe that there are certainly people who want this,
and who also believe that it could be won. a
I also believe that there are enough rational (I use
that term loosely) senior members of the military who realize that it could not be won, and therefore, likely it
wont happen.
maricia
,
December 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm
Look up Eva Bartlett [Canadian journalist] -- she
spoke[12/9/16]. at the UN Press conference concerning Syria-Sovereignty and Peace.There also were 3 other speakers
there -- all were very interesting to listen to. TRUTH WAS SPOKEN about Allepo. The corporate news media, bombards you
with nothing but lies on a daily basis, just like they did about WMDs
Taras77
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Ms Bartlett is one savvy and brave lady!
b.grand
,
December 16, 2016 at 4:24 am
Mainstream Media lies about Syria exposed by Canadian
journalist Eva Bartlett
See the outstanding Off Guardian website for an article
about BuzzFeed's attempted smear job of her.
lizzie
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm
Also this woman in the linked video below -- incredibly
brave, actual witness to the fall of takfiri and mercenary forces' occupation of E. Aleppo. SAA and Russian
helpers are humanitarian heroes -- but listen to the MSM line spewing from the guy from The Hill -- and the
UNdiplomat, Samantha Power, should be drawn and quartered for her totally irrational spewing of hate and lies at
the UN the other day.
One reason the MSM has come to literally hate Trump is
his determination to talk around them using Tweets and other "social media" mongering. He knows that becoming
President might render him a captive of enemies and is, no doubt, taking steps to prevent that. Interesting that
he is not moving his wife and young son into the White House.
Looks like the 6 majors no longer control all the
messaging anymore, and many of their "talking heads" really do take it personally -- you can tell it in their
voices as they spew out their daily "talking points." Nora O'Donnell (CBS) was literally spewing lies and hate
(from both her mouth and her eyes) for Dr. Assad this very morning!
I believe this is going to end badly. The corrupt
establishment are terrified that Donald Trump will "drain the swamp" and expose years of malfeasance. That is why the
propaganda pushers in the corporate media are in a raging frenzy against Trump. I will be surprised if he is allowed
to become President. The war criminals have opened the gates of hell around the world. Nuclear war could be
perpetrated by the present lunatics running the corrupt system. Read more at link below:
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-war-criminals-that-opened-gates-of.html
Taras77
,
December 15, 2016 at 9:53 pm
Remarkable comments for a remarkable article-thanks, Mr
Parry.
Johnson is former CIA and rails at Brennan for taking down
the reputation if that were possible.
On the plus side, we have the lack of support from Clapper.
We have the failure to show up to brief congressional committee on the "hack." We have the Intelligence Professionals
(of which Johnson is one) completely shredding any assertion that the information was hacked. We have Craig Murray
stating that he knows who did the leak, and Wikileaks denying any input from the Russians. I am waiting for more info
to come out from disaffected CIA or former CIA. The FBI and Comey are deadfast set against any evidence of a hack.
But on the other hand, we have the brain dead MSM and neo
con handlers ready to continue to do the bidding of the elite, deep state, establishment or whatever. And we have the
profile in courage sitting in the white house equally ready to the bidding of the elite and the bidding of the neo
cons.
I see the justified concern in the comments above. To cap
this rambling comment, I do not know nor does anyone else how this will come out but at a minimum, trump will have a
difficult 4 years. To me, it absolutely criminal the mis-characterization of Russia and even more criminal, not
allowing anyone to take that first major step in restoring a working relationship with Russia.
If trump is able to accomplish just one thing, for me it
would be a major plus: stop the neo cons and stand up to their continuing attempts at infestation of major govt
positions, think tanks, political sychophants,
Bob Van Noy
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Excellent link Taras77. Thanks
Evangelista
,
December 15, 2016 at 9:42 pm
Sometimes things backfire; sometimes badly, sometimes
hilariously
It is reported that some 40 electoral electors have signed
on to demand official (hoped to be reliable) information about the allegations of "Russian", "Russian!", 'Russian',
Russian, and now "Vladimir Putin's Personal!" "hacking" of, no longer computers, but "The U.S. Election!". The number
might be still rising.
Of the known ones, who signed on a letter, most are
Democratic electors.
Outraged Neo-Cons and an at least "fellow-traveler" Harvard
Attorney have been pushing a "Hamiltonian Interpretation", claiming that this interpretations makes it 'OK' for
electors to violate the contract of their agreements with their states and state-party's to vote for the candidate
winning the presidential race in their state [Presidents, as the electoral college system indicates, are elected by
the states of the United States (or the majority of the states' electors) to be 'President of the United States',
rather than 'President of the People of the United States'].
I find myself, from these given facts and analysis of them
and the situation, perceiving that there seem to be more Democratic Electors listening to, and hearing, the Siren
voices of the "Hamiltonian Interpretation Loreleis, and suspecting that there may be more Democratic electors giving
consideration to switching their votes than Republican electors.
Imagine a "landslide" for Trump in the Electoral College.
Imagine the potential effects:
Imagine the already hyperventilating going into overdrive
Imagine the Hilaryatti, already prostrate and in counseling, having to deal with No, I am getting into the
impossible, beyond the unlikely
Pablo Diablo
,
December 15, 2016 at 9:36 pm
The Electoral College should nominate Bernie Sanders for
President. He leads in all the polls and would be the best thing for The United States of America.
Jessejean
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:52 pm
O Pablo–that is totally Diablo! And I completely agree.
Go Bern.
John
,
December 15, 2016 at 8:54 pm
The drama triangle is the oldest play in the book .Google
"drama triangle" .The question is who are the money players .who would benefit from a world wide socialist system I
know we have the jewish scumbag George Soros betting against anything that makes him more wealthy. I will travel 1000
miles to piss on his grave His time is up very soon !! The question remains unanswered who would have benefited
monetarily under the hag Hillary .Follow that money line to the mother load or continue to use fake news (another
Zionist tactic) toward OZ .Do you people have a strategy for your own salvation ??? I'm thinking no
Clyates
,
December 15, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Parry, Are you the only real journalist left in this
country? Thank you for always telling the truth. I'm donating immediately.
Em
,
December 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm
I think many are missing the real underpinning of the Fake
News propaganda assault and the Russia hysteria. The rhetoric is all coming from the Clinton media support system
otherwise known as the MSM. The rhetoric coming from the Trump transition is anything but cold war. I think what the
progressive media are failing to recognise or perhaps just don't want to talk about, is that the MIC is in the middle
of it's own civil war. I think it's fairly certain, reading between the lines in the articles a few weeks ago, that
General Rogers at best deliberately ignored the DNC hack, and almost certainly had a direct hand in Comey's decision
to drop the metaphorical grenade on the Clinton campaign in the final week, which many, including myself believe
really cost her the election in the end. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think, as Steve Pieczenik stated (and
who knows what side that guy is on if you read his bio) there really was a counter coup. My guess is that apart from
Rogers, Kelly, Flynn, Mattis and maybe McChrystal were the larger part of it.
What's really interesting is that all of these guys (apart
from McChrystal) made their way up the ranks from the bottom; their daddies weren't admirals or senators; they all
saw front line action and have continued to join their troops at the front. I've listened to their interviews, NOT
the Fox News soundbites, but extended interviews on YouTube and none of them are bloodthirsty hotheads. Mattis is
particularly impressive in terms of his breadth of knowledge with a number of talks to right wing think tanks online.
I would highly recommend Flynn's long interviews on Al Jazeera and RT. I think it's interesting Flynn is under fire
today for undermining the CIA especially having listened to his interviews, which are surprisingly candid. Flynn
expressly warned against those in Washington who advocate continuous war. He also showed contempt for drone warfare,
like many in the military, probably because the CIA are calling the shots, literally, whilst the military leaders
have to take the fall for their mess ups, just like in the military prisons. These generals have all made statements
against torture, and talk (at least) impressively about women's rights and the scourge of trafficking, including
human trafficking; and while they use typically measured language, it seems apparent they are under no illusions as
to Administration's collusion in what most people would categorize Organized Crime.
When you actually listen to them, it is clear these
old-school generals want an "end game", specifically the end for them is the fall of theocracy, a goal which Putin
would undoubtedly share. Russia only supports Iran for geostrategic, not ideological reasons, especially since
everyone is aware Iran is still playing the same old despicable duplicitous games with the CIA that started under
Reagan. I think they're counting on if Iran falls, all the Sunni theocracies who essentially hold the rest of the
Islamic world will fall into line and secularize. So if the generals remain in power I think that's where they're
going. Their other aim is to split Russia from China, which probably won't be difficult because China wont share
their technology with anyone, and they are leaping way ahead of the rest of the world with alternative energy, and
Russia has never trusted China historically, and vice versa. Russia has a lot more in common with the US than anyone
cares to admit openly. Russia for these guys makes far more sense as a first line frenemy than Europe or China,
Europe being far too social democratic, and China being too autocratic. These generals aren't infected with the
generations old Slavophobia that seethes out of Westminster and their American aristocousins.
This policy shift would drive CIA/MI6 "business interests"
(their raison d'etre) into the ground, especially since Rogers seems to be breaking up the NSA and who knows what
that means for the lucrative privatized end of the cyberwar community. Jobs for Russian hackers? You laugh but Dulles
was happy to bring in the Nazis after the war. That, in my opinion is what's behind the current media meltdown. It's
obvious that the CIA/MI6 are blatantly weaponizing the MSM and using Russia to attack the Trump transition at a level
never seen before because the CIA heads are seriously under threat for the first time since the 60s. Rumours abound
that Trump is going to be deemed unfit for office before the inauguration, in which case, bunker down. Don't get me
wrong however: I don't think Trump's generals are nice guys, and I'm not advocating for them. Although they have all
expressed a desire to move to alternative energy, they want to ramp up domestic fossil fuels in the "short-term" as a
way to bury the power of the Saudis, and undoubtedly they will start a war with Iran, two reasons to be scared as
hell, because that means either conscription or "tactical" "mini" nukes. The alternative is CIA continuous proxy wars
and "Global Initiative" organized crime/trafficking, weapons of mass migration, and no difference over climate
change, except the utter insanity of Brennan's geoengineering strategy (see his C-SPAN CFR speech) which makes the
new CIA chief look reasonable by comparison. That's how fucked-up things are – Pompeo is the preferable choice.
"We the people" therefore continue to be between a rock and
a hard place, i.e. we're screwed either way. But those regular folk seeking to topple Trump should be careful what
they wish for, and people need to wake up to what's going on. If the CIA is intent on another coup before January,
there really would be a massive crackdown in this country. No commission could cover it up, so it would mean the end
of free speech and the Internet as we know it. The last nail in the coffin.
Realist
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:14 am
Hmmm. Hope you're wrong about most of that stuff in your
last two paragraphs. The rest hangs together like it might be plausible.
When do they count those damned electoral votes that are
cast four days from now? That might be the last day of our republic as we have known it for 228 years. If there's
a coup, there will be blood.
lizzie
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm
Here is the schedule as published in the Federal
Register:
It seems to me that Russia and China have finally
understood that they are either going to stand together against America or fall separately.
Your premise implies that 1) Americans can be trusted,
which is demonstrably false, and 2) the Russians are stupid enough to believe #1 is true.
No way Russia abandons its allies to make friends with
us. For to do so would be suicidal.
eric
,
December 19, 2016 at 3:36 am
your wrong Russia and China are together We shot a
missile into the Chinese Embassy and killed a few Chinese in Yugoslavia Bill Clinton apologized and said this was
a accident . However when George Tenet testified before congress that we picked out the Chinese Embassy for a
target China knew Bill Clinton had lied to them
Yeltsin had promised Milosevic that Russian troops will come in with NATO forces and protect the Orthodox
Christians in Kosovo . So Milosevic agreed to end the war and bring his troops home . But when Russian troops
landed U.S. general Wesley Clark issued orders to shoot the Russian soldiers The British troops refused the order
but the Russians were unable to protect the Christians This failure in
Yugoslavia brought down the whole Yeltsin government in Russia and Solzhenitsyn install Putin to lead Russia .
This is the kind of mistakes a stupid super makes Both Russia and China were unable to save the only non NATO
European country that they felt treated them on a friendly bases With the enemies Russia and China learned they
have they decided they better stick a lot closer together . Since this time Russia has tried to strengthen China
any way they can . And I don't know but I think China will reciprocate and act the same way towards their friend
Russia . China told us only a few years ago they have not forgotten or forgiven what happened to them in
Yugoslavia .You are right Russia should be a natural friend with the United States the two most Christian
countries in the world .But these are the kind of mistakes it is impossible to forgive and forget . I don't think
it is possible for the United States or any NATO country to get between Russia and China . They both know what
happened to Yugoslavia . And they don't intend for that to happen to them ..
AriusArmenian
,
December 15, 2016 at 7:47 pm
Amazing.
We have the choice of a 50/50 chance of bigger war with Trump, or a near 100% bigger war with Hillary and US elites
want the latter.
They are using the CIA to attempt a coup to overthrow a US national election.
The US looks like the biggest banana republic in history.
With the MSM carrying water for the elites I feel like the future in the US is hopeless.
While the US will keep killing more millions.
My last hope is that the Eurasian powers will stop the US cold.
Jerry Falkenstein
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:20 pm
"They are using the CIA to attempt a coup to overthrow a
US national election."
"The US looks like the biggest banana republic in history."
"With the MSM carrying water for the elites I feel like the future in the US is hopeless."
The Democratic Party (and those who are connected to the
establishment) may desperately need to do an autopsy on their election loss but the people are desperate to rid
themselves of these two wings (Republican and Democratic) of the same vile bird of prey (Upton Sinclair).
Brendan
,
December 15, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Achtung, all Aryan women! Beware of Russian-backed Arab
rape-gangs!
Gustav Gressel from the George Soros-funded European
Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) warns of the possibility that Russia might encourage refugees to carry out sex
attacks in Germany in order to influence the federal election there next year.
"What would happen, for example, if a similar event to [the
mass sex attacks on New Year's Eve] in Cologne were repeated at a summer festival before the election? How would
Merkel stand then? What would be the consequence for the Bundestag election? Of course, this is an extreme example,
but it is within the range of possibility," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/13/think-tank-warns-russia-sex-mobs-germans/
Gressel refers to the attacks in Cologne on New Year's Eve
last year as an example of what the Russians might organise. However, it turns out that there was a lot of
misreporting of those attacks.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/05/hamb-n05.html
Admiral Harry Harris, commander of US Pacific Command,
used a speech in Sydney yesterday to warn that the United States was ready to confront China over its activities
in the South China Sea. Under the Obama administration, the South China Sea has been transformed into a volatile
flashpoint for war between China and the US. Harris's remarks make clear that those dangers will only rise under a
Trump administration.
Harris has been one of the most strident advocates of
aggressively challenging China in the South China Sea. In March last year, he claimed that China's land
reclamation activities in the Spratly Islands were "creating a great wall of sand" for military purposes. His
comments were the opening shot of an escalating US campaign to demand Beijing cease those activities and to
justify the US military build-up in the region.
This Admiral Harris has been making the news lately. At a
speech at Pearl Harbor he took the opportunity to dump on Colin Kaepernick, and the Pentagon gleefully touted this
until somebody remembered that the US Navy had a dreadful race record during WW2. When I checked into this
hyper-heroic Admiral, I learned he was one of the commanders at Guantánamo. When three of his victims "died suddenly
and violently" this gold-dripping jackass declared that the dead people had engaged in "an act of asymmetrical
warfare waged against us".
There is no telling what Trump is going to do, but if he
encourages this crap, all his election promises about not getting into needless wars will be for nothing.
Your posts are always good and reflect good thinking
skills. It never hurts to look at both sides of a situation. A lot of the posters on this site haven't examined
what this country is in for with a Trump presidency. Hope SS isn't their only means of retirement. I hope they all
have a good health plan. We have to cut taxes for a lot of the war mongers. What was it that Pogo said? "We have
met the enemy and he is us.
F. G. Sanford
,
December 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm
Could the election hysteria get any weirder, or the "deep
state" any more desperate? Probably. But, what would it take? How about a fake alien invasion? If pale cadaverish
white men with crew-cuts, black suits and homberg hats start showing up in your neighborhood wearing horn-rim
Ray-Bans, don't automatically assume they're really the "Men in Black". They might correspond to Carl Schmitt's
"different and alien", but take my advice. Look for dandruff. It's a dead giveaway for fake aliens.
Great article, Mr. Parry!
Joe Tedesky
,
December 16, 2016 at 2:17 am
"pale cadaverish white men with crew-cuts, black suits
and homberg hats start showing up in your neighborhood wearing horn-rim Ray-Bans, don't automatically assume
they're really the "Men in Black"
I'll tell right now if these guys show up at my house
I'm inviting them in, setting up my drums, (I hope they brought a sax and keyboard) and we are jamming .if
everything goes down the way I hope, me and my Men in Black will have a soon to be released hit album for sale on
iTunes.
Abe
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:42 pm
I'm expecting Putin to show up at my house with zombie
Hitler riding a T-Rex.
John Kerry did visit Antarctica during the presidential
election.
If we count all the illegal aliens that voted for hillary
then yes, she did win the popular vote. The " recount " has exposed massive fraud that benefited hillary in Michigan
and other places . The e-mails were leaked not hacked. RIP Seth Rich. All one has to do is look at Trump rallys vs
hillary rallys. There is no way hillary won the popular vote.
By calling the Electoral College archaic is simply wrong. It avoids mob rule by giving equal voice to all the country
not just LA, DC,Chicago, San Fran, Seattle , NYC and Miami and south Texas.
Ol' Hippy
,
December 15, 2016 at 6:01 pm
As I've said before Russia is not really an enemy of the US
unless provoked into hostilities be inept government officials. The one main thing about Trump is his softer stance
of Russia and Putin. Hopefully this will hold up as I'm sick and tired of hostilities created by the neocon
establishment and all their warmongering actions. It's kind of like the anti-war movement during the 'Nam; give peace
a chance. I just hope Trump can stand up to all the hawks in Washington, we'll see. However the anti-Russian
propaganda may be tough to over come and end up escalating into a cold or even a hot war which we'll lose because
Putin is well ready for an attack. I wish for peace which has always been my stance. I just hope reason and sanity
rules out over provoked hostilities. But the odds are probably against this dream of mine and others for sure.
Bill Bodden
,
December 15, 2016 at 5:54 pm
For some reason this mendacity-laced Russia bashing brings
to mind the yellow journalism promoting the war against Spain after the sinking of the USS Maine.
The chaos that is currently evolving should come as no
surprise when we consider the sizable number of people who considered that the two candidates representing the
Democratic and Republican parties for president were equally atrocious if for different reasons. That is one of the
consequences of voting the perceived lesser evil from two corrupt parties. The evils became progressively more so
with each quadrennial charade. The American people are responsible in part for this ominous predicament which may
mean an enlightened resolution to this conflict is highly unlikely.
Just wondering why doesn't Craig Murray release the name of
the "Dem" leaker. Wouldn't that settle the Russian hacking story and stop the guessing. All other leakers usually
reveal their name.
backwardsevolution
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:49 am
Daniel – I believe Craig Murray said that he was given
the documents by an intermediary, on behalf of someone else. One leaker was probably Seth Rich, the murdered DNC
staffer. Julian Assange offered a $20,000.00 reward for information re Seth Rich's death. Why would Assange do
this if Seth Rich hadn't had something to do with the leaks?
"Re supposed Russian hacking, Karl Denninger (who does
know his Internet technology), has a post entitled "So It WAS NOT Hacking". Karl quotes the Daily Mail in U.K. and
Craig Murray's involvement:
"Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan
and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails.
He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources.
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary
election playing field against Bernie Sanders.
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'."
There was no hacking. There was instead a disguntled
Democrat operative who had access to the data, dumped it, and turned it over.
This is a guy who (1) claims to have met the actual
source, (2) received the actual data and (3) got the data because the person who took it was*****ed off that the
Democrats stole the nomination from Sanders.
The "Russian" claim just went up in smoke."
Then Karl (who is not a fellow who is into conspiracy
theories at all) says:
"PPS: Was his name "Seth Rich"? Because if so then every
single person supporting the "hack" narrative, repeating it or cheering it on is in fact cheering on murder and it
is my sincere wish to each of you, collectively and individually, that you burn eternally in Hell for your open
and outrageous support of both corruption and murder."
If it was Seth Rich why isn't Assange giving the
$20,000 to Craig Murray? I am sure you remember Vince Foster. Who was the person that had him Killed? Oh by the
way Craig Murray was relieved of his British post. Not quite sure why.
Bill Bodden
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:13 pm
Oh by the way Craig Murray was relieved of his
British post. Not quite sure why.
Briefly, he was outspoken in criticizing torture
in Uzbekistan. Do an internet search for "ambassador craig murray uzbekistan" for more information.
backwardsevolution
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Daniel Foley – I believe the $20,000.00 reward was
for information on who was responsible for Seth Rich's murder, you know, hopefully to catch the killer.
Craig Murray is a pretty credible person. Google him.
exiled off mainstreet
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Knowing the nature of the yankee legal and political
system, it would be death or imprisonment for the leaker. That is why the intermediary was necessary, and,
knowing these facts, that is why the democrats are cynically blaming Russia and revealing their true nature as
having evolved into gangster-fascism since the DLC-Clinton hostile takeover of 1990 or so.
It is possible the Murray stuff is disinfo intended to
discredit Wikileaks which as you may know, has a perfect record of accuracy. I would stick only with what Assange
says, for now.
With Israel Russia relations now quite good, have to wonder
why Israel first US neo cons hate Putin and Russia so much.
Brad Owen
,
December 16, 2016 at 1:11 pm
The Israel First US neocons hate Putin and Russia so
much because they are just puppets in an Imperial Play. The string-holders are much higher up in the pyramidal
hierarchy of World Dominion. The entire Zion Project is the creation of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group in the late
19th century. It, along with SME (Synarchist Movement for Empire) intends to secure World Empire for "Eurogarchs",
ancient Imperial families (some with old Roman roots, many with Holy Roman Empire roots) and their Managerial
Elite in the banks and corporations (this is the essence of fascism; simply the modern version of old ancient
Empire, which, like war, is also a racket, with imperialists being highly-polished racketeers). The RoundTable
Group had as its' primary goal the re-capture of its' "Rogue Colony" USA through its' Wall Street asset (mission
accomplished), gradually defeating all tendencies towards a Constitutional Republic (lethal ideas for racketeering
Empires). The primary relationship to be blocked at all costs is friendship with Russia ("the big one that got
away"). India got to share colonial status with the same Imperial Masters as do we (City-of-London). China had
opium wars foisted upon them by the same Imperial Masters (C-of-L), AND haven't yet wised up to the booby trap
that is Hong Kong (C-of-L's eastern asset like Wall Street is its' western asset. Ahh but there lies Russia,
always befriending and defending revolutionary/republican USA since the days of Catherine the Great (ever wonder
WHY Russia sold us Alaska?). The day that Russia and USA become firm friends and allies is the day that Empire
dies and THAT is why Israel First (C-of-L), US (C-of-L-via-Wall Street asset) neocons hate Putin and Russia so
much they simply must, to keep Empire alive.
P.S. Israel-Russia relations are so good BECAUSE they know which way the "geopolitical winds" are blowing.
eric
,
December 19, 2016 at 1:58 am
Well that day is going to officially take place in
about thirty days or so you should be very happy ps unless some thing big happens in the next thirty days or so
Gary Hare
,
December 15, 2016 at 5:18 pm
I have had seventeen years working at local executive level
for two large US Corporations – IBM and Raytheon. I was CEO of a small start-up living in the US for two years. So I
have had plenty of opportunity to observe the US psyche close up.
It has been my experience that too many US citizens exist
under this "perception management" syndrome that the USA is exceptional, is always right and good, and is the only
model for how a society should function. I have always been able to work with people who are ignorant. You merely
have to educate them properly. I can work with people who are arrogant. You only have to put into their minds
concepts that they mistakenly think they originated. But I have always found it impossible to work with people who
are both ignorant, and arrogant.
The "perception management" tool you highlight produces
business and political elites who are both alarmingly ignorant (of other viewpoints) and extremely arrogant (I am a
US citizen – ergo, I must be right). How else could it be possible for a voter to be given the choice between two
such flawed characters to lead their country, and sadly to exercise so much influence over the rest of the world? And
does this not reveal the gross shortcomings of the field they beat to contend for this top job? And the party
apparatus that put them forward?
Trump is clearly arrogant. I can only hope he is also not
ignorant. The flaws in US policies are so easy to see, that he does not need "insider briefings" to appreciate them.
But who among the elites are sufficiently impervious to "perception management" to be able to implement sensible
policies, even if Trump is able to articulate them?
It seems to me that the US is on the verge of dying from
the virus of believing its own propaganda.
Like you, I recently spent nearly two weeks in Russia, but
only in Moscow and St. Petersburg. So admittedly, my experience is skewed. I was surprised by the number of young
people who spoke English, and who admired Putin for the simple reason that Putin can explain to them the rationale
for his policies, and can demonstrate success in most of them. He typifies leadership. The US tendency to want to
vilify Putin is counter-productive, slanderous, transparently unfounded and obviously childish. Sensible people do
not take it seriously. But who in the US political elite is sensible?
Stephen Sivonda
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:46 pm
Gary Hare . well spoken and a real joy to read. When I
look at a web site that has comments, after reading what the article is about I usually start to read comments .
There are such a variety of comments for almost any subject, but more often then not the comments devolve into
worthless drivel Once that happens I leave although if I read say 20 comments that would be a lot. There is much
to be learned by reading intelligent comments , and the followers of Consortium News make it a place to learn.
Enels
,
December 16, 2016 at 3:56 am
Seldom in history/herstory, could there be a place so
self deluded. (whatever that means ) But no, it isn't funny, The BS about the Russians hacking to skew the
election promoted by the loosers/Democrats, (I was one once), is awful.
Americans are in a strange place now. If Trump goes hard
against SS, and medicare, and unions, oh boy!
eric
,
December 19, 2016 at 1:50 am
I don't expect Trump to go against social security
and medicare although I have heard a lot of republicans claim they have too because the money will be gone .. I
sure don't like to hear this coming from republicans Reagan a great republican increased the social security
contribution so he could cut the top income tax rate . there by shifting the burden from the wealthy people to
the poorer people This made him a great republican . I think Trump realizes he was elected by the working
people and will work for us . But he a republican and that scares me a little . I'am expecting medi care for
everybody and this time the republicans will vote for it I just hope the democrats vote for it too . . This is
the program Hillary wanted for many years . I don't think Trump is a typical republican . I can not think of
anything that controls costs better than medicare for everyone . The healthcare industry will fight medicare
for every one but bogus billing has no place in healthcare .. When I say medicare for everyone I mean everyone
I mean congress and all government employees every one .
Bob Van Noy
,
December 15, 2016 at 5:18 pm
It's truly maddening having ones perception managed. Thank
you Robert Parry for helping us resist such management with the only weapons we have and that is our experience and
ability to decipher what we read. These are frustrating times because powerful special interest forces are at war
with each other and it becomes nearly impossible to discern fact from fiction. Fortunately we have your reputation
for reporting factually to guide us through this unbelievably dishonest period of our democratic experience.
There is a good exchange between Professor Stephen Cohen
and Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch on Democracy Now at the following link. I would encourage those not familiar
with these observers to look up their history and judge their statements for yourselves
I spent 3 weeks in Russia and was amazed by what I saw.
Sanctions are a joke. Russians have just simply replaced Western goods with their own, which in many cases are of
better quality. The only shortages I noticed were of American crap. Two things stood out about Moscow and St.
Petersburg vs. New York City where I live: 1) everything was so clean and spotless, hardly any graffiti; and 2) how
clean and efficient (and cheap) their subway system was relative to NYC. Some of their stations look like museums,
spotless and no rats. Also, trains that run on time and no delays due to "sick passengers" or "train traffic ahead"
and free wifi everywhere including trains and not just on select stations. Russia isn't perfect of course, but it is
far far far from being the dungeon depicted in the US media. On the contrary Moscow and St. Petersburg are in many
ways better places to live than New York.
Geoffrey de Galles
,
December 16, 2016 at 5:48 am
Hear, hear -- I, for one, know exactly what you mean. My
wife and I are western Europeans (Germany / UK) who, beginning in the early 1970s, ended up spending half our
lives in the very heart of Manhattan. That was great, as far as it went. But then in 2002, upon returning home
from almost a month spent in Russia with my elderly father (who, as a UK Russophile, had visited the USSR + Russia
by then well over a score of times, beginning as a seaman during WWII), I felt compelled to admit to my dear Frau
that, had things only been a lot different back in the '60s & 70s (viz., the Cold War!), we'd have done much
better for ourselves to have headed east, rather than to have ever gone west. After all, Russia has true culture
and -- in its own unique way -- just the kind of fine taste that one encounters in, say, Italy, France, or Spain.
Moreover, the common folk are so very much more 'honest-to-goodness' and 'for real' than, typically, one finds in
the west. -- – Those who have never visited Russia and are consequently clueless about its current cultural ambience
might do well to go check out on YouTube the some two dozen postings of the Moscow girlie-trio, YOUNG ADULTS. A
few of their videos indicate their (understandable enough) roots in and devotion to Russian musical traditions;
but, for the most part, their repertoire attests to their pro-active reverence for modern western (US + UK) music
(featuring their astonishing covers of recent classics from the likes of, e.g., the Red Hot Chili Peppers,
Pharrell Williams, the Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce, and Amy Whitehouse). Improbably and extraordinarily, almost
always the YOUNG ADULTS manage to exhume and tease out the real music buried and entombed in the often raucous and
vulgar renditions of the chosen songs' originators (!!!); but, in any case, the tender-loving-musical-care that
they invest in everything they do attests to their respect and reverence for western music, and even the very
culture that has begotten it. -- – Oh that the United States and Europe would similarly partake of, share in,
regenerate and propagate that essential magnanimity of the great Russian people. -- And thanks again Randy for your
post.
Imagine that Vladimir Putin were not a murderous autocrat
and kleptocrat who has spent his fourteen years in power living up to his KGB past and dragging Russia ever back
towards Communist autocracy, illiberalism, and expansionism. Imagine that instead he were one of the greatest leaders
that Russia has had, whose policies have helped produce a massive rise in living standards and life expectancy,
recuperation of national pride, and enforcement of the rule of law, who has tackled kleptocrats and gangsters wisely
and well, whose foreign policy has on balance been realistic, diplomatic, and conducive to peace, who has presided
over a country of which the human rights record is considerably better than that of the United States and in which
civil rights are improving, and who richly deserves the steady support of 65% – currently at a Ukraine-related high
of 83% – of the population that he possesses. It is my understanding that the reality is closer to the second
scenario than the first – and I may note that I say this as someone with no ethnic, financial, professional or
political ties to Russia whatsoever. It follows that I am not a Russian expert – but nor am I, on the other hand,
parti pris. I am a friendly, distanced observer of the country.
Let me start by explaining the history of my connection to
the country. .
Michael Morrissey
,
December 16, 2016 at 5:52 am
Thank you, hyperbola, for this link. Didn't know about
Off-Guardian. Every major newspaper needs a dedicated "Off" site. The NYT used to have "Lies of Our Times" but it
folded after a couple of years and was never big enough to keep up with the propaganda pouring out of the Giant
Wurlitzer. Times are different now, with the internet. I would love to see at least one Off site for every "news"
outlet, and even though it would be impossible to do that for tv and radio, having the "paper record" consistently
deconstructed would be a huge step forward.
Jerry Falkenstein
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:41 am
"Imagine that Vladimir Putin were not a murderous
autocrat and kleptocrat who has spent his fourteen years in power living up to his KGB past and dragging Russia
ever back towards Communist autocracy, illiberalism, and expansionism."
Who said that? I never thought that. Did the neocons say that? I was thinking lately that probably Stalin wasn't
really as bad as I was brought up to believe. In fact I hardly believe anything our government says anymore.
Abe
,
December 17, 2016 at 6:41 pm
"Deconstructing Russophobia" is a superb account from
British academic Catherine Brown. As always, thanks to OffGuardian.
You seem like a smart man but Putin was not the ruler
for 6 of those 14 years . Medvedev was and he also was a good leader like you described Putin might be . It was
Medvedev that said No when Georgia attack south Ossettia . It was Medvedev that showed the world the bear was back
. Ever since we attacked Yugoslavia and fired a missile into the Chinese Embassy accidently on purpose than issued
orders for NATO to shoot Russian soldiers because they will try to protect Christians . Ever since these stupid
power mistakes Russia and China have had our number . They are together and looking for chance to get even .
Humiliate us like we did them , They have been working together for 17 years with this goal in mind . Now they are
in Syria with their new weapons doing what they want to and humiliating us . I say good they are finishing the war
we started and are doing what we should have done congradulations Russia and Putin and thank you very much
The Artist formerly known as young man
,
December 15, 2016 at 4:49 pm
Apparently Churchill once said: "History will be kind to
me, for I intend to write it". The American version of this quote? – History will be kind to us, for we intend to
repeat it.
That pretty much sums up the current drive for starting
Cold War 2 by the Americans (They were responsible for starting the first one too, by the way). Their way of thinking
is – Cold War 1 took care of the Soviet Union, so hopefully Cold War 2 will take care of Russia. Not so fast amigos.
Americans repeat history not because they didn't learn
something from it, but because they draw wrong conclusions from it. Just because they "won" the Cold War 1, it
doesn't mean that they should expect to "win" a second one too. The stakes are much different now. It's much easier
to give up on ideology than it is to give up on the place where you live.
Or maybe the Americans decided to tweak a little bit
another saying: "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". I
actually think that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results is equally insane.
Circumstances change, you know, the world is not an isolated laboratory where you can eliminate external factors. The
experiment might fail this time. But don't listen to me, go about your business.
Dwight
,
December 15, 2016 at 4:48 pm
The Union for Concerned Scientists has joined in this
hysteria in a press release about Trump's appointment of Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State. UCS President Ken
Kimmell states: "This position calls for someone able to put national security and the well-being of Americans first
and foremost. But Tillerson's close ties to President Putin and Russian oligarchs call into question his ability to
deal firmly with Russia, which attempted to disrupt U.S. elections according to U.S. intelligence agencies."
The main concern Kimmell raises in the press release is
climate change, and I can certainly understand an environmental group being concerned about an oil exec as Secretary
of State with climate negotiations in his portfolio. However, a new Cold War is the last thing we need if we want
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and détente with Russia could enable cooperation on climate change. Decades
of inaction ago, Robert Redford called this "Greenhouse Glasnost" in his book of that name with articles by U.S. and
Soviet climate scientists.
UCS also works on risks of nuclear power and nuclear
weapons, which are related concerns on which we international cooperation not a new arms race and more proxy wars.
I learned about the UCS press release in an email from a
local environment group which repeated the gratuitous attack on Russia in seeking donations. It is sad to see this
meme spreading among people that should be thinking deeper about the implications of détente versus cold war.
Rob
,
December 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Human caused warming of the climate is the ultimate
danger facing the planet, and it is entirely appropriate for those who recognize this fact to be alarmed that our
next Secretary of State will be a person whose entire career has been devoted to extracting fossil fuels from the
earth and burning them. Moreover, there is strong evidence that Tillerson and Exxon were well aware of the
deleterious effects of greenhouse gases, even as they were minimizing those risks to the public. This is the basis
for the "Exxon knew" campaign, which is getting little attention in the press (unsurprisingly.)
Which raises the obvious question: Could Donald Trump
not have found someone other than a climate change denying, fossil fuel extracting corporate titan to run the
State Department and lower tensions with Russia? Of course he could have, but he didn't, because Trump himself
does not accept the reality of global warming. Thus we should not be surprised by his appointment of Tillerson to
State or oil industry tool Greg Pruitt to the EPA. Trump's motto might as well be "screw the planet."
This article was so over needed. While the content within
won't make it to any MSM report (until, perhaps, months/years down the road), I was sure -- as an adamant progressive
with cyber security background -- to post it to every social media outlet I use and send to email chains where it's me
vs a bunch of "liberal-hawk" friends.
I can understand/deal with one absurd, hawkish and out of
touch/reality party. But, to have both in the same boat, is really, REALLY scary stuff. The stuff that makes a Trump
presidency alone seem like a walk in the park.
James lake
,
December 15, 2016 at 4:38 pm
Interesting article. Clinton, and her echo chamber in the
media with all this Russia bashing really are tone deaf.
She misjudged the voter and showed no sense of their concerns.
They were thinking about jobs and health and other concerns, her only policy was more war.
If Trump can stop the neo cons that in itself will be a
great achievement for America and the world.
Jessejean
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm
But first Rachel Mddow has to destroy her credibility by
hysterically pushing the 3rd way, corporate dem, neoliberal Cold War, CIA driven excuses for losing power to a
discredited Rethuglican party over the last 16years.
eric
,
December 19, 2016 at 12:31 am
Trump did stop the establishment of both political
parties and that was the neocons too Than he tripped the pope when we learned the Vatican had a wall around it too
. Now his only trouble is the FBI and the CIA and they heading for the dust bin of political history unless they
can shoot him first .
Patricia Guerrero
,
December 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Thank you for this. Its difficult to sort out sometimes the
twists and turns of politics. as a dem/dove who is appalled at what our foreign policies have been, although I don't
like trump, I thought an easing of cold war hostilities with Russia was a good thing. Now I know why. I only voted
for Clinton because I thought it was the only way to help further Sanders agenda. I cannot forget that she grinned as
she stood behind her husband when he signed the bill that killed Glass Steagal or her support for the first Iraqi
invasion and continuing hawkishness. I don't despise her like some do but I could never really warm up to her.
Sanders is very authentic; when asked about human rights for Palestine he was the only politician that at least said
they were entitled; all Clinton could repeat was "precautions must be taken". With HRC she came across as espousing
policies to win votes, not that she was passionate or even honest about them.
Stephen Sivonda
,
December 15, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Patricia Guerrero It's good to read that someone is
beginning to develop an awareness of what passes for our Govt. today. It is somewhat complicated as there are many
layers of that are only interested in their wallets and how far up the power food chain they can go. I've tried in
vain to describe to several friends some of the reasons why certain events happen and use the analogy of a "Big
Puzzle" . It's my version of critical thinking. Once one starts to look at past and current events (those being
pieces of the puzzle) , then things begin to connect and take shape .as similar to filling in the voids in the
puzzle. Your mentioning of HRC standing behind Bill Clinton and grinning jumped out at me .as a person who is on
track to seeing what a morass of evil we have for Govt. and the political machinations by the DC insiders. God
save the Republic.
exiled off mainstreet
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:39 pm
Unfortunately Sanders has jumped the shark supporting
this effort aimed at demonizing Russia to overturn the election results. It proves he was either weak, a fraud, or
both, unfortunately. This will damage the democratic brand long-term, although if Tulsi Gabbard becomes a
candidate it may be a way out of the trap.
Zachary Smith
,
December 15, 2016 at 4:08 pm
The Moon of Alabama site has a new post about the motives
of this latest "stuff".
My only quibble with it is that he neglected to mention
other people who would prefer President Hillary or President Pence.
Abe
,
December 15, 2016 at 3:47 pm
German political theorist Carl Schmitt defined the content
of politics as opposition to any person or entity that represents a serious threat or conflict to one's own
interests. The "other" or the "stranger" is defined as an "enemy"
For Schmitt, the political is not an autonomous domain
equivalent to any other domain, such as the economic, but instead is the "existential" basis that would determine any
other domain should it reach the point of politics.
Schmitt defined the enemy as whoever is "in a specially
intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are
possible."
For Schmitt, such an "existential" enemy need not even be
based on nationality: so long as the conflict is potentially intense enough to become a violent one between political
entities, the actual substance of enmity may be anything.
Leo Strauss, a follower of political Zionist Vladimir
Jabotinsky, had a position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932 and
summarized Schmitt's political theology thus: "[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But
dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against – against other men. Every
association of men is necessarily a separation from other men – the political thus understood is not the constitutive
principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state"
With a letter of recommendation from Schmitt, Strauss
received a fellowship from the Rockefeller Foundation to begin work, in France, on a study of Hobbes. Schmitt went on
to become an influential figure in the new Nazi government of Adolf Hitler.
In the late 1930s, as Hitler's Reich was expanding in
Europe, Schmitt developed his concept of "Grossraum", literally "great-space". The term has a sense of a "sphere" of
influence, and "geopolitical space" may be closer to the meaning.
Schmitt intended the Grossraum concept to grasp an area or
region that goes beyond a single state (that is, a specific territory), to comprehend much larger scale spatial
orderings, complexes or arrangements.
After World War II, Schmitt considered the United States to
be the only political entity capable of resolving what he regarded as the crisis of global order.
Indirectly influenced by Schmitt's concept of the
political, twenty-first century American Superpower "exceptionalism" has no space in its Grossraum concept for a
"Eurasia".
The very enunciation of a "Eurasian" political sphere by
Russia and China is regarded by American Superpower as a "terrorist" act. All those associated with such "lunacy" are
viewed as geopolitical "enemies" to be annihilated by any means possible.
You said, "In the late 1930s, as Hitler's Reich was
expanding in Europe, Schmitt developed his concept of "Grossraum", literally "great-space". The term has a sense
of a "sphere" of influence, and "geopolitical space" may be closer to the meaning."
This is the story of America. From the Revolution to Expansionism and then on to Manifest Destiny and our winning
position in both World Wars, America has always been about creating geographic space, political space and recently
even in Outer Space.
The Star Wars or Space Defense Initiative proposed by
Reagan was an attempt to create Space Superiority in Outer Space. They even have a branch of the Air force called
Space Command.
http://www.afspc.af.mil/
.
The Mission statement for Space Command defines Space Superiority as the freedom of the United States to defend
itself from attack in Outer Space as well as the freedom to attack any target from Outer Space. The targets might
be other orbital craft in Outer Space such as satellites or any land based target. Space Superiority is perhaps
the ultimate vision of domination. The freedom from attack in Outer Space and the freedom to attack from Outer
Space on any land or space based target will mean an escalation of space based weapons which are banned by
international treaties like international treaties on Antarctica which declare Antarctica to be free of
politically motivated land grabs by any Nation.
I can only imagine what will happen when they find oil
under the ice covered Continent once all the ice melts.
What we need is a rational government that is concerned
with this inevitable clash of capitalistic goals and the environment.
I think our military is actually concerned about these
inevitable outcomes if we continue to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. The Navy and the Air force have
been actively seeking alternatives to a fossil fueled military but they have been blocked at every turn.
What we really need is a revolutionary fuel source like
Fusion to save the day. It might be right around the corner. The military is investing heavily in it. They see the
destabilization of the economic and geographic regions of the World due to climactic change as threats to our
National Security.
Fission is also realistically possible as an
alternative. But political intransigence has stifled progress on that front. Watch "Pandora's Promise" which is a
documentary by ex-antinuclear activists. I'll sum it up in an epitaph for humanity which reads "They were most
afraid of what could have saved them and they were unafraid of what killed them".
One fact is clear. The future stability of World
governments and their populations depends on abundant energy. There is no other single driver of prosperity and
stability than affordable abundant energy. It was the driver for the rural electrification program under FDR. Back
then they understood this equation and mounted massive public spending to make it happen. The recent rise of
southern state populations can be attributed to the development of Air Conditioning which made these regions
habitable in the Summer months. Thus was born an economic expansion which drove our former Cotton Belt into a new
industrial giant.
Some visionaries have laid plans for a solar based
economy which would utilize massive banks of lithium batteries to break the old myth that electricity cannot be
stored. Elon Musk is one of those visionaries. Entire cities could be powered at night by batteries.
The global crisis in energy supply is being driven by
the same folks who imposed unfair tariffs on goods before the Revolution. They would like none other than to hold
us hostage in an oil economy which very well might kill us all.
Modern developments in photo-voltaic cells have resulted
in a continuous manufacturing process which utilizes plasma deposition of a multi layered dielectric film onto a
substrate such as rolls of steel sheet which results in and amorphous coating capable of rivaling monocrystalline
cells. The result is a process which resembles the revolution Gutenberg started with his "printing press". Instead
of growing Silicon Crystals and doping them with rare elements, the plasma deposition process uses a continuous
sheet of a substrate passed through an interlock chamber into a high vacuum chamber where various materials are
deposited as a plasma onto the substrate in a continuous fashion to produce a finished product which can be cut up
into tiles for low cost and installed on roofs to generate electricity. The difference in this technology is akin
to a scribe hand copying books verses a Xerox machine doing the same thing. It is the same difference between the
time Bibles were the property of the Church and to be caught in possession of one was a capital offense and modern
times where paperboys deliver newspapers for cents on the dollar.
Whether it is a Fusion or Fission or Solar or even a
tidal based form of unlimited energy, one thing is clear. These technologies are real. They exist. To the extent
that we drive our planet into a mass extinction by burning fossil fuels or we transition to clean energy which is
abundant and practically free will determine whether we end up holed up in a cave with our guns ready to shoot
anyone crossing our sights or whether we transition into an economy where energy is essentially free.
The new administration is increasingly looking like it
wants to live in the cage. A cage determined by a global economy based on oil and fossil fuels.
If Donald Trump really wants to create jobs he would be
well advised to divest himself from fossil fuels and take a turn toward the future as envisioned by leaders like
Elon Musk. The Army did not make their move lightly on the Dakota Access pipeline. They have a duty to defend us
from security threats. They take that responsibility seriously. We would be wise to listen to them.
I know that all of the corporate people interested in
preserving their economic investments in fossil fuels have to take a deep breath and submerge themselves into the
unknown waters of a non-oil based business model. But they need to see the vision. They need to know that their
future success depends on it. They need to act quickly and pour their profits int the many available means to
provide an energy rich future where many things are possible and opportunity abounds.
There are two kinds of people or for that matter two
kinds of corporations or governments. There are those that hold onto old business plans and defend them at all
costs believing their old business models will save them and there are those who see opportunity where others see
only risk. It is those individuals, companies or governments which see the opportunities for continued growth
utilizing new technology who will succeed. Those who are paralyzed by old business models and old paradigms will
fall to the wayside.
We don't want the USA to be one of the losers. If Donald
Trump wants to be the "more jobs" president he will embrace new technology and not appoint members of the old
guard as the stewards of America's future.
It is not a matter for debate. The fields of technology
will continue to open up potentials for a more stable and economically rich future. These things are real and they
are up for grabs. Whoever grabs them first will be the winner. Whoever refuses to grab them will be the loser.
This is an ask. Donald Trump can do it. He is an
outsider and not involved in the business of government. Many of his ideas are fresh and hold great promise. Some
of his appointment show he might be being blindsided. He should council himself with the members of our National
Security Team who want to see a secure future and distance himself from those who want to preserve the old guard.
David F
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:04 am
This sort of advocacy for some technological fix that
allows us to go on living in the same, or greater, fashion than we are now, is part of the problem.
We live in a finite space, with finite resources,
time to start acting like it.
Abe
,
December 16, 2016 at 6:41 pm
CitizenOne, your comment is right on topic if the
topic is fake news.
"Pandora's Promise" is a pro-nuclear industry
propaganda film. The new pro-nuke missionaries are promoting nuclear material as some kind of savior of the
global environment when it is precisely the opposite.
Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and their oligarch chums
can blast off to go colonize Mars with Trump, Clinton, and all their wannabe cabinet appointees.
We'll keep our money and finally build a grid that
fully integrates clean energy from abundant renewable resources like solar and wind.
Joe Levantine
,
December 17, 2016 at 3:57 am
@ Citizen One
Your comments are very insightful since you commented on the most important issue that is at the core of
international conflict.
However, if history is any guide, your hopes will unfortunately be nothing more than wishful thinking. The case
for my pessimism is none other than the great Nicholas Tesla. Tesla, who by Einstein's reckoning is the
greatest scientific mind that has ever been was wasted by the powers that be because he was on the verge of
discovering free and clean energy. He did emulate thunder in his lab. His quest was to harness the electricity
in the ionosphere and channel it for human use through a central tower. His research on plasma was way ahead of
his time. His reward was an assassination attempt by the energy cabal who were hell bent on keeping their
monopoly power through the fossil fuel business. When Tesla's lab went on fire, it was U.S. Government agents
who stormed into his lab and confiscated all of his files, thereby putting a sad end to history's greatest
mind. The silence of history books about Tesla speaks volumes about the matrix controllers' animosity to this
unique man.
To expect from Donald Trump to be a selfless hero is stretching reality over the limit. His presidency did save
the world another round of in the White House for the Clinton ghouls. Yet, his potential for reforms is very
much restrained since his ascendancy to power came through the ballot box and not through a real revolution.
Leibniz16
,
December 18, 2016 at 1:00 am
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was conceived
by Lyndon LaRouche and his associates was conceived as a strategic flank to prevent those in both the American
and Soviet spheres, of launching a "First Strike" thermonuclear attack which was the increasing danger at the
time, to which with Obama is a threat as great as ever. Furthermore it was a strategy of helping both the U.S
and Soviets out of the economic collapse, which is still occurring, through what would be a cooperative
"Science Driver" approach, that would be working on areas of plasma physics and other areas of concerns
relevant to a entire revolution of energy production.
It was LaRouche and associates that published a
magazine called Fusion, working on advanced nuclear technologies to help
revolutionize mankind's potential, and break out from the control of the financial oligarchy.
Presently we at the verge of a complete energy
revolution through the discoveries of Randy Mills and his Brilliant Light Power Company that has a verified
demonstration of a novel understanding of the hydrogen atom, whereby the electron orbit is dropped to a lower
spin state, releasing vast amounts of energy.
Brad Owen
,
December 18, 2016 at 10:46 am
Well said, citizen one. It all really does boil down
to abundant energy, and energy flux density, as Lyndon Larouche says. We wil advance onward through denser
energy flux production. It's what people DO, as naturally as lions hunt and birds fly; technological
advancements is what people do, from chipped flint stone tools to fusion-powered space flight to Mars in a
weeks time, and beyond that stage too. In this NEXT round of technological advancement, China, India, and
Russia will be leading the way, as it is THEY who are now the World leaders. I'm confident we'll break free of
the Imperial Straitjacket that has been affixed upon us by other powers in opposition to our Constitution and
republican principles (i.e. Patriots, NOT the Tory-Loyalists-to-Empire-and-"Crowns", that still infest our
nation, doing the bidding of ancient Imperial family lines, seeking to "capture" us and make us their
simple-minded beasts-of-burden).
CitizenOne
,
December 18, 2016 at 11:42 pm
In reply to to Abe. France is not Fake News. They
generate 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Fission. Modern reactor designs are safe. There is a word for
it, failsafe. Westinghouse invented the spring to close air to open brake and we were all not afraid of
runaway trains anymore. Technological advances and really any technological problem is usually a very simple
solution like the air brake but now in modern times simple solutions to problems are drowned by politics.
That is the thing that makes technology fail fail. The technological solutions are usually sound but where
we need them we need to put off the politics live with the occasional unintended consequences and let the
inventors course correct rather than condemning failure and halting all progress. Where would we be if,
after the first Mercury Rocket blew up, we threw water on space adventure calling it a doomed technology?
Luckily that did not happen.
In response to David F:
I suppose then we should all be living in a cave
painting the walls with mystical creatures since technological solutions are doomed to failure. Are you
living in a cave? I don't think so. Perhaps you are or should be since you eschew any form of technology,
live in a finite fixed environment and are prepared to be a victim of circumstance. That is some kind of
crazy world view.
In response to Brad Owen:
I completely agree. Abundant energy is the key to
our future growth. Indeed it is what people DO. I also agree that that it is unfortunately what other
nations are doing way ahead of us. If we do not get on the bandwagon and decide that the future is all about
abundant energy then we will become the losers in the technology front. As I laid it out, the technological
means to transform our world into whatever we want it to be are already here. They have been developed and
even more are being developed which have the potential to power a bright future like the invention of
electric power grids which power industry, economies and enable commerce.
It is time for science and technology to be
applied to the problems we face developing new means of energy production that are all around us from solar
to battery technology to fusion, biofuels, nuclear fission using safe technology, wind, tidal and even
really challenging technologies but if we are not investing in it, then it means we are not investing in any
new energy sources.
The history of past inventions was not made by
those that said the technology was a fools errand. The inventions were made by visionaries who had the
stamina to endure all of those folks who poo pooed the new technology and eventually prevailed.
It is really not a matter of if but when we will
enter a new age of abundant energy. Energy drives everything and it also is the most important factor for
peace. Abundant energy establishes the wealth of nations more than money. Without it, money is worthless
since it cannot be used to purchase the motive driver for creation of goods and services.
The history of the Industrial revolution was
driven by energy. Abundant energy.
The Sun fuses ten million tons of hydrogen every
second and it will last for ten billion years. How is that for a clue that life on Earth depends on abundant
energy. If we were able to fuse even just one ton of hydrogen every second in the production of electricity
we would power the entire planet. If we could just convert one percent of the solar energy impinging on our
tiny dot of a planet circling around the huge nuclear furnace of the Sun we would power the entire global
electricity requirements for a long time to come.
These are the visions we need to be occupied by.
Not visions of impending doom or hopelessness.
What we need now is an energy race. An energy race
to create a new economy which is driven by safe energy. Photosynthetic cells which are like photovoltaic
cells consume atmospheric Carbon Dioxide using solar energy to produce Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen. The CO
can be used as a feed stock to produce hydrocarbons which can be synthesized into synthetic fuels which
create a carbon cycle which is entirely atmospheric. If we want to reduce atmospheric CO2 we can just pump
the fuels back into the ground or use them to produce durable products like cement which can be used for
construction.
I know that this might seem like a pipe dream and
perhaps it is. It will not be a pipe dream when we feel the full effects of global warming. Then there will
be a market for these products.
The politics will reverse as people seek products
that enable them to survive. It is what people do. It is what life does. It seeks to preserve itself.
Technology will offer appealing alternatives which are even more economical than current energy platforms.
It will make economic sense to adopt them.
It made economical sense to adopt our current
energy platform and the new energy platforms will make just as much economic sense.
We are already seeing this transition from Coal to
Natural Gas driven by the technology of fracking which is cleaner than coal and is now more economically
advantageous. Coal is not dying because of government regulations. It is dying because there are cheaper
alternatives. Win Win for the environment and the consumers of energy and the producers of it.
But the fracking revolution is just the first wave
in new technologies to harvest ever more abundant and cleaner safer forms of energy.
This is not wishful thinking. It has happened with
fracking and it will continue to happen with other forms of energy over and over.
Those that see the potential opportunities will
become the future energy barons.
I would ask only that we would see the movements
by other nations as a shot across the bow that we better get to work. We don't want to be left behind in the
energy bonanza just around the corner.
It is a gold mine out there for the companies that
develop the next generation of massive abundant energy sources. They will gain great wealth. They will be
viewed like Edison or Fermi. Prometheus unchained.
Do not listen to the hysterical mob. Instead
listen to the visionaries who will all get very wealthy with new technological inventions.
It is the way it has always been and so it will be
in the future. We never go back. We never force a halt to the current way we do things. We just invent
better ways of doing it that make more economic sense and make the old ways obsolete.
Perhaps some might advocate we all return to the
caves where we hid from the cold of winter in our elk skin coats huddling over a campfire and drawing
pictures of the food we wanted to eat but did not have as we sucked the marrow out of dry bones but I think
that is not a future I want to see.
I would rather offer to sell the cavemen guns and
ammunition and snowmobiles and portable propane heaters with sofas and furniture for their caves instead.
And you know what? They would be lined up around the cave entrance to buy them.
Think about it.
Abe
,
December 21, 2016 at 3:25 pm
Citizen One, your news about nuclear power in
France is fake.
Power generation is down and wholesale power
prices are rising due to numerous safety and integrity issues that plague Électricité de France SA's
(EDF's) nuclear reactor fleet. Carbon segregation in critical nuclear plant components like the steel
pressure vessel can weaken the vessel's structure and breach safety regulations, potentially leading to
catastrophic events.
Nobody is stopping free energy development I 'am from
Missouri Free energy will come from free enterprise not government subsidies .. We will have new development
and new and better ideas but show me don't tell me . Scams are scams wether the come from crooks or the
government and they often are the same thing .
Ragnar Ragnarsson
,
December 15, 2016 at 3:25 pm
Thank you for being the voice of reason and truth teller
that you are Mr. Parry. I sincerely hope the domestic coup in progress fails miserably and that Trump is able to
pursue peace. I am so sick of Neo-cons and what they've done to the world.
Thank you Mr. Parry for shining the spotlight on the
vitally important topics that you do to keep us informed in depth. As one who tries to see the world through the
lens of parity between nation states, I wonder what you (or other qualified folks) could tell us about the efforts
we Americans have made and are currently making to influence influence, and very likely undermine, the stability
of Russia and President Putin. My guess is we are not without serious complicity in doing the same things as we
now accuse the Russians of doing to us, but of course much of this would be classified. I suspect the more holier
than thou we are, the more committed we are to destabilizing the so-called "enemy" of Russia (despite our measured
provocations to precipitate their alleged aggression(s). Thank you again, have a great holiday season.
Speaking of our "holier-than-thou" attitude, let me
relate a personal story that relieved me of this attitude a long time ago. Re cently , I have been vindicated
as regards any doubts that I might have had about that change of attitude.
During the relatively early years of the Cold War
(1956-59), you know, just before the Chinese split with the Soviets in 1960, the Berlin Wall went up in 1961,
and Gary Powers was shot down, igniting the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it was my job as a Naval Pilot to fly
up and down the Far Eastern coastline (12-mile limit) of the Soviet Union (you know, Kamchatka Peninsula)
looking for trouble. Didn't find much, except the frequent Mig-17 flying my wingtips, who might have been
wondering what we were doing there BUZZING THEIR SHIPS. No problem, they didn't shoot me down, for which I am
grateful. But I did wonder what WE would have done if THEY had been flying so closely up and down OUR
California coast.The American public never heard about these "intrusions" in the Russian "space". Nor did the
Russians publicize them for the obvious reason (embarrassment?).
Come 2016 and OUR ships are cruising around in the
Baltic not far from the suburbs of St. Petersburg, when Russian jets come looking for trouble(?) buzzing OUR
ships.. And there erupted a hypocritical hue and cry from the DOD, etal. to match the usual black pot and black
kettle stories that we hear so often from our powers that be. Not only are we doing the same to them (buzzing
their ships once, or we would have heard about them the other times) that we have been doing to them for 70
year, though not on our California or New York coastline, but in their back yard. This is hypocrisy on
steroids. This is deeply embarrassing to me.personally. Are we that desperate? Who really are these people who
are stirring the pot so vigorously?
EyesWideOpen
,
December 16, 2016 at 4:50 pm
"Who really are these people who are stirring the
pot so vigorously?"
I assume yours is a rhetorical question.
The pot I am referring to is the context in
which everything bad is blamed on Russia. In this case, we can buzz, they can't. If they do it, it's
publicized. If we do it, it's not.
Yes, I guess that it was a rhetorical question
with the implication that the answer should be obvious. All you have to do is read the papers, and it
should be obvious who wants to litigate (gossip) this issue to death.
Minnesota Mary
,
December 18, 2016 at 4:31 pm
Thank you for your testimony! America's government
is so hypocritical. Our news media is so dishonest in what it filters and chooses to tell the American
people. Lies abound, and it is nearly impossible for most people to sort through them.
Correction to my reply: "Not only have WE been doing
the same to THEM for almost 70 years right off THEIR coastline, NOT OURS, but WE have complained when THEY did
this ONCE to us IN THEIR BACKYARD."
eric
,
December 18, 2016 at 10:50 pm
I guess we funded many ngos to destabilize Russia .
So many that Russia has forced many U.S.aid groups to move out of Russia by the end of this year . We funded
the Pussy riot girls that did things in the Churches in Russia that would have brought the girls to the insane
asylum if they did these deeds in Churches in the USA In Russia the girls got prison sentences So our
journalists could write stories about how oppressive Russia .is to people loving freedom . Russia does not
allow gay marriage another terrible oppression and black mark on freedom in Russia .. Russia has built more
Christian churches than any other country in Europe under Putin's kGB leadership . Putin is not Satan . The
Russian people are proud with him as their leader it is only us that wants to get rid of him .
Adele Roof
,
December 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Thank you for this thoughtful, well-informed post. You
are right -- many Democrats, and I was one, did not vote for Clinton because she was a war monger. I also felt, that
as a woman, she would have to go out of her way to prove that she was as tough as any male.
She obviously learned nothing from her disastrous vote
for the war in Iraq, because she influenced Obama to take out Qaddafi. If it were not for her lust for war, I
probably would have held my nose and voted for her. And while I did not vote for Trump, I actually breathed a sigh
of relief when he won, thinking that he wouldn't take us into war with Russia.
To date, there's no proof that the Russians were
involved in hacking/leaking this information. But if this is causing such a stir as to have some want to overturn
the results of the presidential election, then, by rights, to be morally consistent, they should also push for
going back to the Democratic primaries and redoing them as well. Clearly this hacked/leaked information shows that
the Democrats interfered with the election of Sanders. That would be most fair, don't you think?
exiled off mainstreet
,
December 16, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Parry's article is again excellent. The lamestream
democrats are jumping the fascist shark and putting our future at risk. I also am a lifelong democrat who
couldn't support the harpy because of her obvious hawkishness and status as a war criminal based on her
architecture of the Libya destruction. I also think her need to prove herself as tough as any man colors her
dangerous political views. I also agree that the fact it was proven that she is a proven war criminal and they
gamed the primaries against Sanders should eliminate any support for overturning the election on any basis
absent the fact that any success in this endeavour would lead to civil unrest and that what they are demanding,
confrontation with Russia, is a threat to our future. Hopefully former peace types still taken in by the
klinton koolaid will wake up and restore the Democratic party away from its present incarnation as a fascist
militarist threat to our survival.
Good idea Adele, New election, given all the crap
Jill Stein found in the very limited recount effort she was allowed to conduct. The election process is putrid
rotten! Let er and Gary Johnson into the debates this time around as well.
eric
,
December 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm
yes but I'am hoping you made a wise choice . Trump
may not be a old fashion vote no on every thing republican I'am expecting good reasonable priced healthcare
covering everybody and not costing employers so much they won't hire any one . That alone might bring back a
lot of jobs . I voted with you and now I think we have a better future . Of course we could be friends with
Russia . Russia is not communist anymore . They are the most Christian country in Europe and we are the most
Christian country in the world . We should be natural friends
Jerry Falkenstein
,
December 16, 2016 at 11:11 am
2 comments
Dmitry Orlov cluborlov.blogspot.com
Dmitri Orlov cluborlov.blogspot.com
With all the compost being forwarded in cyber space it's
refreshing to occasionally read something that's spot on the money. An article that actually contains real value
or what one might call nourishment for the brain. Every so often I'll read a post that's near perfection and I
just did. It's by Dmitry Orlov and titled "The Power of "Nyet". My expressed thanks go out for Dmitrys permission
to repost this exceptional piece of commentary.
The Power of "Nyet" Author Dmitry Orlov, Club Orlov
Blogpost
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Kerry Putin lavrov The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the
power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their
wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not
immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn't produce the
intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance
an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn't work,
they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late
a new dynamic has emerged.
In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the
phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this:
the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation.
Russia says "Nyet." The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing
campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps
imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the evidence before
us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals." And
then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant! Why didn't we think of that?" But
instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable.
And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing
spectacle.
eric
,
December 18, 2016 at 11:44 pm
You have got the whole story down right .accept China
is standing along side of Russia . They have been ever since we humiliated both of them in Yugoslavia . Now
both of them have developed a lot of new weapons and Russia is in Syria with their new planes and missiles 300
and 400 . Putin has told us we can talk about changes that we could maybe make . But the NWO has already
decided everything they don't want to consider any changes . Not for us , Not for Christians , not for Jews ,
not for Muslims , not for Russians and not for any Chinamen either . They have already made all the orders and
rules . Russia said Nyet in Georgia and now Russia is saying Nyet in Syria too . The Russian people are totally
behind their government and proud of Putin .The American people have finally caught on they are not proud of
what the NWO has been doing they have discarded their NWO government And have selected a new government that is
going take power in thirty days . Trump has said he will deal with Russia and China on a equal basis .We are
facing a very dangerous thirty days the NWO may do anything during this period to stay in power and implement
all the orders they already decided .
"Ditto" to that and Mr. Parry, thank you for the
pictures!
Fran Macadam
,
December 17, 2016 at 5:58 am
Robert Parry, a voice of sanity amidst the McCarthyist
hysteria. How ironic this time around the most extreme purveyors of the paranoid style in politics are
once-liberal Democrats.
Andy
,
December 19, 2016 at 1:28 am
Great article. I'm glad I found this site since it has
become clear that I can't trust the MSM. Even 60 Minutes has become a tool of Washington.
Andy
,
December 19, 2016 at 1:40 am
In Obama's news/press conference on Friday, he said some
very unprofessional things about Russia: "they don't produce anything besides oil and gas " and "they aren't
innovative". (By not innovative does he mean they don't make fake stories like how the Russians hacked the DNC?)
This isn't the kind of thing our President should be saying about foreign countries, especially large ones like
Russia. Where does he got off saying this at a news conference? I'm losing respect for Obama by the day. I voted
for him and after suffering 8 years of Bush he was the savior at the time. But his shine has tarnished.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
Back in the (Great) Game: The Revenge of Eurasian Land Powers August 29, 2018 •
34 Comments
What is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on the mood swings of the Goddess of
the Market. No wonder an effect of Eurasia integration will be a death blow to Bretton Woods
and "democratic" neoliberalism, says Pepe Escobar.
Get ready for a major geopolitical chessboard rumble: from now on, every butterfly
fluttering its wings and setting off a tornado directly connects to the battle between Eurasia
integration and Western sanctions as foreign policy.
It is the paradigm shift of China's New Silk Roads versus America's Our Way or the Highway.
We used to be under the illusion that history had ended. How did it come to this?
Hop in for some essential time travel. For centuries the Ancient Silk Road, run by mobile
nomads, established the competitiveness standard for land-based trade connectivity; a web of
trade routes linking Eurasia to the – dominant – Chinese market.
In the early 15 th century, based on the tributary system, China had already
established a Maritime Silk Road along the Indian Ocean all the way to the east coast of
Africa, led by the legendary Admiral Zheng He. Yet it didn't take much for imperial Beijing to
conclude that China was self-sufficient enough – and that emphasis should be placed on
land-based operations.
Deprived of a trade connection via a land corridor between Europe and China, Europeans went
all-out for their own maritime silk roads. We are all familiar with the spectacular result:
half a millennium of Western dominance.
Until quite recently the latest chapters of this Brave New World were conceptualized by the
Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman trio.
The Heartland of the World
Mackinder
Halford
Mackinder 's 1904 Heartland Theory – a product of the imperial Russia-Britain New
Great Game – codified the supreme Anglo, and then Anglo-American, fear of a new emerging
land power able to reconnect Eurasia to the detriment of maritime powers.
Nicholas
Spykman 's 1942 Rimland Theory advocated that mobile maritime powers, such as the UK and
the U.S., should aim for strategic offshore balancing. The key was to control the maritime
edges of Eurasia -- that is, Western Europe, the Middle East and East Asia -- against any
possible Eurasia unifier. When you don't need to maintain a large Eurasia land-based army, you
exercise control by dominating trade routes along the Eurasian periphery.
Even before Mackinder and Spykman, U.S. Navy Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan had come up in the
1890s with his Influence of Sea Power Upon History – whereby the "island" U.S.
should establish itself as a seaworthy giant, modeled on the British empire, to maintain a
balance of power in Europe and Asia.
It was all about containing the maritime edges of Eurasia.
In fact, we lived in a mix of Heartland and Rimland. In 1952, then Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles adopted the concept of an "island chain" (then expanded to three chains)
alongside Japan, Australia and the Philippines to encircle and contain both China and the USSR
in the Pacific. (Note the Trump administration's attempt at revival via the Quad–
U.S., Japan, Australia and India).
George Kennan, the architect of containing the USSR, was drunk on Spykman, while, in a
parallel track, as late as 1988, President Ronald Reagan's speechwriters were still drunk on
Mackinder. Referring to U.S. competitors as having a shot at dominating the Eurasian landmass,
Reagan gave away the plot: "We fought two world wars to prevent this from occurring," he
said.
Eurasia integration and connectivity is taking on many forms. The China-driven New Silk
Roads, also known as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union
(EAEU); the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); the International North-South
Transportation Corridor (INSTC), and myriad other mechanisms, are now leading us to a whole new
game.
How delightful that the very concept of Eurasian "connectivity" actually comes from a 2007
World Bank report about competitiveness in global supply chains.
Also delightful is how the late Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski was "inspired" by
Mackinder after the fall of the USSR – advocating the partition of a then weak Russia
into three separate regions; European, Siberian and Far Eastern.
All Nodes Covered
At the height of the unipolar moment, history did seem to have "ended." Both the western and
eastern peripheries of Eurasia were under tight Western control – in Germany and Japan,
the two critical nodes in Europe and East Asia. There was also that extra node in the southern
periphery of Eurasia, namely the energy-wealthy Middle East.
Washington had encouraged the development of a multilateral European Union that might
eventually rival the U.S. in some tech domains, but most of all would enable the U.S. to
contain Russia by proxy.
China was only a delocalized, low-cost manufacture base for the expansion of Western
capitalism. Japan was not only for all practical purposes still occupied, but also
instrumentalized via the Asian Development Bank (ADB), whose message was: We fund your projects
only if you are politically correct.
The primary aim, once again, was to prevent any possible convergence of European and East
Asian powers as rivals to the US.
The confluence between communism and the Cold War had been essential to prevent Eurasia
integration. Washington configured a sort of benign tributary system – borrowing from
imperial China – designed to ensure perpetual unipolarity. It was duly maintained by a
formidable military, diplomatic, economic, and covert apparatus, with a star role for the
Chalmers Johnson-defined Empire of Bases encircling, containing and dominating Eurasia.
Compare this recent idyllic past with Brzezinski's – and Henry Kissinger's –
worst nightmare: what could be defined today as the "revenge of history".
That features the Russia-China strategic partnership, from energy to trade: interpolating
Russia-China geo-economics; the concerted drive to bypass the U.S. dollar; the AIIB and the
BRICS's New Development Bank involved in infrastructure financing; the tech upgrade inbuilt in
Made in China
2025 ; the push towards an alternative banking clearance mechanism (a new SWIFT); massive
stockpiling of gold reserves; and the expanded politico-economic role of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO).
As Glenn Diesen formulates in his brilliant book,
Russia's Geo-economic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia , "the foundations of an Eurasian
core can create a gravitational pull to draw the rimland towards the centre."
If the complex, long-term, multi-vector process of Eurasia integration could be resumed by
just one formula, it would be something like this: the heartland progressively integrating; the
rimlands mired in myriad battlefields and the power of the hegemon irretrievably dissolving.
Mahan, Mackinder and Spykman to the rescue? It's not enough.
Divide and Rule, Revisited
The Oracle still speaks.
The same applies for the preeminent post-mod Delphic Oracle, also known as Henry Kissinger,
simultaneously adorned by hagiography gold and despised as a war criminal.
Before the Trump inauguration, there was much debate in Washington about how Kissinger might
engineer – for Trump – a "pivot to Russia" that he had envisioned 45 years ago.
This is how I framed the shadow play a t the
time.
In the end, it's always about variations of Divide and Rule – as in splitting Russia
from China and vice-versa. In theory, Kissinger advised Trump to "rebalance" towards Russia to
oppose the irresistible Chinese ascension. It won't happen, not only because of the strength of
the Russia-China strategic partnership, but because across the Beltway, neocons and
humanitarian imperialists ganged up to veto it.
Brzezinski's perpetual Cold War mindset still lords over a fuzzy mix of the Wolfowitz
Doctrine and the Clash of Civilizations. The Russophobic Wolfowitz Doctrine – still fully
classified – is code for Russia as the perennial top existential threat to the U.S. The
Clash, for its part, codifies another variant of Cold War 2.0: East (as in China) vs. West.
Kissinger is trying some rebalancing/hedging
himself, noting that the mistake the West (and NATO) is making "is to think that there is a
sort of historic evolution that will march across Eurasia – and not to understand that
somewhere on that march it will encounter something very different to a Westphalian entity."
Both Eurasianist Russia and civilization-state China are already on post-Westphalian mode.
The redesign goes deep. It includes a key treaty signed in 2001, only a few
weeks before 9/11, stressing that both nations renounce any territorial designs on one
another's territory. This happens to concern, crucially, the Primorsky Territory in the Russian
Far East along the Amur River, which was ruled by the Ming and Qing empires.
Moreover, Russia and China commit never to do deals with any third party, or allow a third
country to use its territory to harm the other's sovereignty, security and territorial
integrity.
So much for turning Russia against China. Instead, what will develop 24/7 are variations of
U.S. military and economic containment against Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of
Eurasia integration – in a geo-strategic spectrum. It will include intersections of
heartland and rimland across Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and the South China Sea. That will
proceed in parallel to the Fed
weaponizing the U.S. dollar at will.
Heraclitus Defies Voltaire
Voltaire
Alastair Crooke took a great
shot at deconstructing why Western global elites are terrified of the Russian
conceptualization of Eurasia. It's because "they 'scent' a stealth reversion to the old,
pre-Socratic values: for the Ancients the very notion of 'man', in that way, did not exist.
There were only men: Greeks, Romans, barbarians, Syrians, and so on. This stands in obvious
opposition to universal, cosmopolitan 'man'."
So it's Heraclitus versus Voltaire – even as "humanism" as we inherited it from the
Enlightenment, is de facto over. Whatever is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on
the irascible mood swings of the Goddess of the Market. No wonder one of the side effects of
progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to
"democratic" neoliberalism.
What we have now is also a remastered version of sea power versus land powers. Relentless
Russophobia is paired with supreme fear of a Russia-Germany rapprochement – as Bismarck
wanted, and as Putin
and Merkel recently hinted at. The supreme nightmare for the U.S. is in fact a truly
Eurasian Beijing-Berlin-Moscow partnership.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has not even begun; according to the official Beijing
timetable, we're still in the planning phase. Implementation starts next year. The horizon is
2039.
(Wellcome Library, London.)
This is China playing a long-distance game of go on steroids, incrementally making
the best strategic decisions (allowing for margins of error, of course) to render the opponent
powerless as he does not even realize he is under attack.
The New Silk Roads were launched by Xi Jinping five years ago, in Astana (the Silk Road
Economic Belt) and Jakarta (the Maritime Silk Road). It took Washington almost half a decade to
come up with a response. And that amounts to an avalanche of sanctions and tariffs. Not good
enough.
Russia for its part was forced to publicly announce a show of mesmerizing
weaponry to dissuade the proverbial War Party adventurers probably for good – while
heralding Moscow's role as co-driver of a brand new game.
Were the European peninsula of Asia to fully integrate before mid-century – via
high-speed rail, fiber optics, pipelines – into the heart of massive, sprawling Eurasia,
it's game over. No wonder Exceptionalistan elites are starting to get the feeling of a silk
rope drawn ever so softly, squeezing their gentle throats.
Pepe Escobar is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
2030 . Follow him on Facebook .
Ron Craven aka Ronzig the Wizard , August 30, 2018 at 1:20 am
Isn't it ironic; the people of the Western world, at least those of us who even have a
clue of what's happening, are reduced to praying for Russia and China to save us from our own
elite leaders WHO SEEK TO REDUCE ALL OF US TO ABSOLUTE SLAVERY? I thank God that Putin is a
political genius who surpasses anything the West can put forward. And China the definition of
inscrutable has quietly allowed us to finance their takeover of the complete Western economic
system which is breathing its last breaths as our leaders wonder what happened.
I have a friend who has a masters degree in business and economics yet he has no clue of what
is happening right before his eyes yet I who barely squeezed through grade 12 foresaw this a
decade ago. It's pathetic that the most powerful people in the world are sp blinded by greed
and dogma that they can't recognize the writing on the wall.
Tom Kath , August 29, 2018 at 7:56 pm
The reference to the pre Socratic "men" as compared to "Man" is significant. – It is
inherent in the concept of "Globalism", "Hegemony", and "One God".
Dunderhead, I am not with the global warming/climate change folks at all! I am with folks
who believe that we all must limit consuming and must learn to make do with less, not be
greedy, live more simply. Climate change will always happen, that is basic geology,
astronomy, science shows that. I am saying that, we are now seeing major shifts and I am with
those who say our Sun is the major player. We have millions of landfills on earth, plastic
and polllutants choking oceans and killing marine life. I consider these "carbon peddlers"
just another form of disinformation and very misinformed, it's political hype for the masses,
but we have serious consequences for future generations that are real due to our capitalistic
overconsumption and nearly 8 billion on Earth. I think China has awareness of that to some
extent, but the competitive pressure from the Western genesis of capitalistic consumption is
huge. For my personal choices, I am working to keep my plastic usage to a minimum. There is
evidence that we are in the midst of an electromagnetic polar shift right now, we are seeing
an intensification of number of earthquakes right now, and the last few years we have
witnessed extreme catastrophic earth events. It is Earth itself doing this, and it may be
coming from the mantle, or even the core. I used to be support staff for earth scientists in
Boston and I learned a lot, took geology courses.
Joe Wallace , August 29, 2018 at 11:57 pm
Jessika:
"I am with folks who believe that we all must limit consuming and must learn to make do
with less, not be greedy, live more simply."
I'm with you on that. We in the U.S. and Canada live in immensely wealthy societies,
despite the wage stagnation that afflicts those in the middle class and below. It might be
making a virtue of necessity, but many of us can live relatively comfortable lives by
luxuriating in adequacy, a privilege not accorded those in the developing world.
jose , August 29, 2018 at 6:52 pm
Mr. Escobar is correct to assert that "integration will be a death blow to Bretton Woods
and "democratic" neoliberalism" If one internalized this basic premise, it is easy to
comprehend why Western elites throw a monkey wrench at every possible opportunity of Asia and
Europe integrating. They fail to realize that all things must come to an end because their
minds are closed to this very real possibility. Paraphrasing minister and speaker john mason
"Nothing dies quicker than a new idea in a closed mind" Their days are numbered and they know
it.
jose , August 29, 2018 at 6:37 pm
What I concluded from this article was that Western elites cannot stop what is coming. It
is a very natural process that Europe and Asia integrate at some point. Western elites can
only postpone the inevitable with their wars and tariffs. In other words, the idea of
integration has been maturing long enough and there is no turning back. Quoting Victor Hugo
Les Miserables "No army can stop an idea whose time has come"
Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 6:36 pm
First off, Pepe you rock, you are the coolest and probably most interesting journalists
out right now. Couple of comments however, what looks like Genius from the Chinese is just
strategic common sense though you're right the Chinese do know how to play the long game.
Speaking of which I really don't believe that they are going to be as benevolent a hegemon as
Pepe is suggesting, they're not particularly good about respecting African opportunities for
employment on some of their various projects in that region. All that being said I think the
new Silk Road project is a fantastic idea and can only wish that that if these any sense left
in these incompetent criminals running our government, they could figure out the long-term
opportunities for cooperating with the Chinese, the arms manufacturers do not always have to
produce arms, guns into plowshares as it were. Anyway Great to see your article and
consortium, I've got to catch up with your stuff at Asia Times, Thanks.
Always fun to read Pepe Escobar, why i look at Asia Times online daily as well as Eurasia
Futures and South China Morning Post. The Asians play the long game while the impatient West,
especially US, play only the short gotta-have-it-NOW game. The bellicose bully bombing
Machiavellian neocons with their hardening of arteries in the brain can't conceive of
cooperation. There is one other surprise prime mover in this mix often overlooked, and that
is Gaia or Mother Earth. At least it seems that Xi Jinping and the Chinese have made
reference to environmental concerns with the BRI, which is more than can be said for the
Western neocolonialists in their bombing for "democracy".
At a recent meeting with a top advisor of Assad in Syria, a Lebanese paper reported that
the US negotiators said they would withdraw if Syria would give them a cut of the oil! Wow,
what gall! Assad would not agree, wonder what's next? This is the way they work, as Pepe
said, "My way or the highway", gangster diplomacy. There is no honor among thieves.
Dunderhead , August 29, 2018 at 6:48 pm
Jessica, There is obviously more carbon in the atmosphere, I don't think that is debatable
but the technology to actually do something about this has been around for 45 years orso, the
fact that they don't do anything about it, means to me this furor over climate change is just
another government scam like overpopulation, anyway specific technologies: thorium based
fission and long-term carbon sequestration, these are easy things to look up. I don't believe
I know everything about this topic but it's even real debatable that wait now the climate is
optimum in the sense that a slightly warmer climate all around gives longer growing seasons
and makes it also less expensive to heat one's home. So to ask the question, why do you
believe global warming is such a problem more than just general pollution?
irina , August 29, 2018 at 10:16 pm
Yes, here in the continental subarctic (Interior Alaska) we are looking forward to a
longer
growing season and less heating expense. BUT what we are seeing is simply more variable
weather, making it harder to grow anything in an already challenging climate. Also, for
some
reason (go figure) weeds are more adaptive to higher CO2 levels than food crops. Meaning
the weeds thrive even better than ever, while the food crops grow at about the same rate
as
always, only more choked out by weeds than ever. Other problems include new (to us) bugs
and plant diseases as they move North, drier droughts and heavier rains (this was
predicted)
and skewed seasons with much later springs and somewhat later falls. (Not great, as our
really sunny season is spring, not fall).
Many areas of the planet may end up having such unpredictable year-to-year weather
that
annual agriculture, upon which most of the global population depends, becomes untenable.
Professor , August 29, 2018 at 5:24 pm
I've been reading Pepe's stuff for a few years now.I like it. He is good at, Macro/ big
picture stuff. He's great on Pipelinestan issues as well. But I think he picks and chooses
his ideas a little too freely at times .The result can be more like a collage at times than a
Picasso. We are pushing real hard right now on Russia, China and Iran. Eurasian Integration
Projects are clearly a threat to American dominance especially since we are undermining the
dollar through unilateral sanctions and other tricks everywhere, up and down the line. This
should be of great concern to our allies but they are already on board behind whatever
decisions Our Government makes. They really don't don't have anywhere to go. Germany and
Japan are totally integrated with our economy and Germany has been the biggest beneficiary in
terms of economic and fiscal policy of NATO's march eastward. They love it and they'll buy
Russia's gas too. No problem. We won't stop them. I believe Trump's strategy is less
aggressive than Clinton's would have been. There really isn't much of a choice. One thing I
would add, Big Picture: China did not build the Great Wall as a tourist attraction. It was to
keep out barbarians/foreigners, After the Boxer Rebellion they kicked out foreigners. Mao
kicked out foreigners. They are fine with themselves, A guy I know who spends a lot of time
in China and knows many very well, socially, says that the Chinese think the next 1000 years
belong to them. . Forget a Project for a New Chinese Century, They expect the New Silk Road
to deliver the goods big time and forever. They need Russian Gas to pull it off. They also
like 5th and 6th generation Russian weapons but so apparently do everyone else.
Paul by the way, a couple of weeks back I revisited a post and sore your comment, thanks I
think you made some valid points, I particularly thought it was encouraging of meaningful
opposition to corporations having the rights of individuals, and your analogy about the
regulation of the telephone companys back in the day, on the other hand, in an age of mass
communication incorporate state propaganda the fact that more Americans cannot find it in
their hearts to feel for the plight of Palestinians simply because they are ignorant of the
fax in the matter is testimony to censorship has always been with us. I personally had no
knowledge of the Liberty incident until about three months ago and I am a relatively avid
reader, this discovery is due to independent journalism who support themselves directly
through patrion or readit and probably other platforms, I think this is becoming normal, in
certain ways this is a fortunate time to be alive. Anyway thanks again!
The legitimate grievance against the United States is that it has overplayed its hand,
throwing sanctions to anyone not adhering to its rules. The power we have over the world
banking system created a Putin who rose to challenge our unipolar world. For the sake of the
world, and the United States, it is to be hoped that we can be made to climb down and join
the rest of the world as real equals.
Escobar mention the principle of Westphalian sovereignty which is part of the UN Charter:
: maybe it should be read aloud on the floor of a joint session of Congress and tweeted to
our President. Maybe sent to our networks and newspapers. We created the UN Charter, we
should abide by it
Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:35 pm
This is a fantastic read. I am wondering why the links to the Asia Times pieces don't
display correctly – hmmm – maybe it's the new censorship.
I like to think that American Exceptionalism is nearing its end, but I don't hold out hope
it will happen soon enough. It appears they are doubling-down on the jingoism of late. Then
again, that's what desperation looks like.
Jeff Harrison , August 29, 2018 at 12:18 pm
Pepe is always able to get you thinking
A major difference between the US and China is that the US tries to influence with heavy
handed threats and coercion while the Chinese use flattery and assistance to help you see
things their way. Russia under Putin acts like China but his predecessors were more of the
heavy handed variety. In the end though American hubris and insufferability (from the last
four presidents) has driven Russia and China together in a way that economic systems
(communism) never could. The US is the past. We have frittered away so much of our wealth and
international goodwill chasing phantom fears that were all well past their use by date
decades ago. We have spent ourselves into penury. Not just because we have $22T in debt, but
more importantly because we no longer have the economic engine to generate enough wealth to
support $22T in debt and counting. Yeah, go ahead and print more money. Every dollar will be
worth less and less.
Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Not to mention the gorilla in the room, the trillions of dollars going into our
over-extended military, which doesn't get us anything but the reputation as global terrorists
and bullies. :(
bobzz , August 29, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Well, I had a comment here, agreeing and enlarging on Jeff's, but it it gone. I've never
had that happen before on CN. If CN did not do it, who did? Just asking.
A Johnson , August 29, 2018 at 4:33 pm
It's not 'we' that did all that, plenty of 'us' have been screaming for decades about
foreign deaths, wars for profit, and looting of treasure BY the insiders. The elites did it,
including buying the propaganda. 'We' always get stuck with their bill. I'd like a few necks
stretched.
This would all be fine if we were still dealing with Mandarins and Tzars but we are not
and it is hard to escape from the fear that having watched Baron Rothschild build a new
Kingdom quite close to China, that we are simply watching the construction of ever more
'private' Unions, which will, of course, be run by hidden controllers.
"No wonder Exceptionalistan elites are starting to get the feeling of a silk rope drawn
ever so softly, squeezing their gentle throats." – Thank you for that closing Pepe. I
needed that very satisfying visual.
Groucho , August 29, 2018 at 11:41 am
Another excellent article from Escobar. I always appreciate his ability to summarize the
huge geopolitical transformation that is under way. I also find the response of Western
elites to be remarkable. Rather than work toward accommodation and cooperation they will
bankrupt themselves in a futile attempt to maintain hegemony. Galbraith was correct when he
said that those in power will bring about their total destruction rather than give up any
part of their advantage.
Mary V , August 29, 2018 at 12:38 pm
I love the Galbraith sentiment – perfect.
Mark Thomason , August 29, 2018 at 11:13 am
A very long railway cannot support continental-scale trade and integration. That requires
what does it now, 100,000-ton container ships in constant flow. It is a question of volume
first, and of cost per container second. Ships are so far ahead it is absurd to compare.
China is developing the necessary commercial ports to use for this. That is the only real
challenge, if there is one. That means the sea, the rim, for both the continent and its
rivals. China's real progress is on that.
However, the US and allies are the other end of that sea route. It can't be maintained
except by some level of cooperation. There can be no great game, not combined with the
integration of world trade. That is a neocon fantasy, they promote as cover for their schemes
to dominate with US state power to gain private profit.
TomG , August 29, 2018 at 10:44 am
While the Chinese plan then implement for a long term infrastructure strategy for
interconnected markets, we skip the planning piece and go instead for yet another drone base
in yet another foreign country. Our long term strategy is apparently to blow up what ever the
Chinese-Russia-Euro alliance builds. This has certainly been our expression of 'defending our
national interests'–the Kissinger-Brzezinski doctrine of endlessly repeating stupidity
until we are completely bankrupt as a nation. When the global corporations abandon the USA
for more vibrant and inherently stable infrastructure the USA empire can retire into its
apparent destiny as the model for late 21st century failed states.
I hope I'm not expected to share Mr. Escobar's article with others. While I think
important points were made and one can link easily to more information, I did think my eyes
were going to glaze over with all the jargon and post-Westphalian modal references. Which is
to say I might well have missed his most salient points. I'm not intellectual enough to know
for sure. :-)
John V. Walsh , August 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm
TomG, You make an excellent point.
Indeed the Chinese agree as seen from this opinion piece in Global Times: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1117108.shtml
The money quote is:
"Considering that sea transportation is comparatively cheap and safe, China must attach great
importance to the construction of the south route of the Silk Road, that is, to connect the
CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) with the Silk Road Economic Belt, and to make
supporting the economic and social development of Pakistan as the top priority of the Silk
Road strategy."
"There are pros and cons to the development gap between eastern and western China. On the one
hand, it poses a serious challenge to the government's efforts to support the development of
Xinjiang and Tibet and to eliminate poverty. On the other, it sustains China's demographic
dividend and provides a historical opportunity for the "second reform and opening up." The
vast central and western regions have got their advantages in terms of labor cost, land
supply and natural resources. Therefore, on the basis of access to the Indian Ocean and
China-Pakistan Railway, the Kashgar special economic zone, and other western towns are
expected to become "inland ports" connecting the oceans, thus re-creating the Shenzhen
miracle and becoming the engine of China's second great opening up and development."
In sum the land route goes from the Kashgar region of Xian in China through Pakistan to
the Indian Ocean. In this way China becomes a two-ocean power in a way. But it is a long way
to Kashgar from the rest of China even the western part and another long haul through
Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. Can this work?
On the other hand, although transport via a land route across all of Eurasia by train is
more expensive than by rail, rail is quicker and not as prohibitively expensive as air
transport. Will it all work?
I believe MacKinder saw rail transport as the vehicle of Eurasian integration and felt
that the trans-Siberian railway was the first attempt at it, if memory serves. Was he
right?
In general the Belt and Road must not only be a good idea, it must make sense
economically. Does it? Hope so because it holds out hope for the development of the Asian
interior, including western China and for spreading China's successful poverty alleviation
and development model across Asia and even into Africa. Not to mention it spells the end of
the unipolar world which is becoming a worse nightmare every day.
Bob Van Noy , August 29, 2018 at 9:58 am
Geopolitics is endlessly fascinating as we see here again with thanks to Pepe Escobar. Now
we hear of yet another geo-arrangement from Glenn Diesen. I havn't read Mr. Diesen's book but
I don't doubt that he offers up many insights for would be World Managers. Those managers,
both in the past, and those yet to advise, have generally caused much serious chaos to the
general populations affected by their thoughts, neither Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew
Brzezinski have done America much good for their theories. I'm convinced that the American
People are not now and never were, interested in any concept of Empire. We've been Marketed
or Propagandized into a coordinated responses, usually an inappropriate ones. This time we
actually have an opportunity to re-evaluate our recent lost history and rebuild better more
appropriately eco-friendly local economies and to become a better World Neighbor or Partner
as the Diplomats say.
" we actually have an opportunity to re-evaluate our recent lost history and rebuild
better more appropriately eco-friendly local economies and to become a better World Neighbor
"
Oh, how my hope lies in doing just this!
One thing I've observed again and again living beside the Amish, they are kind to those of
us 'outside their community' and will help if any help is needed. Kindness and neighborliness
go hand in hand–and they us show it can be done.
John V. Walsh , August 29, 2018 at 2:32 pm
TomG,
Another good thought.
BUT the future is no longer in our hands – it is in the hands of the Eurasian powers,
China, Russia, Iran AND India. They have to do something new for humanity that goes beyond
the old imperial ways to look at the world. Escobar AND Kissinger are both fond of citing
Zheng He as evidence that genuine Empire as oppose to border disputes is not in the Chinese
culture – or in their DNA as Xi puts it.
The best we can do here in the US is to make sure that the US ruling Elite does not blow us
all up, the Samson option, as it tries to come to terms with the new realities. That means
supporting all peaceful overtures to Russia and China. One example is the recent Helsinki
Summit which deserves our support and had the approval of a majority of Americans. So did the
idea of a follow-up. Unfortunately amongst organized progressives there was nary a word of
praise or support with very few exceptions, one of them being CodePink which is much to be
commended. Otherwise Trump Derangement Syndrome prevailed. And so we drift toward
oblivion.
mike k , August 29, 2018 at 9:14 am
Heading off the Samson option by the wounded hegemon US Empire will be a major concern for
all global players from now on. As well as factoring in the inevitable collapse of industrial
civilization. There is not any way for all this to end well in sight at this time. Human
extinction seems by far the most likely outcome for us. Too bad – we have probably
screwed up our world, and ourselves, beyond the possibility of recovery.
Sally Snyder , August 29, 2018 at 7:30 am
Here is a more detailed look at how both Russia and China are putting a mechanism in place
that will allow them to work around future trade problems with the United States:
The sanctions and tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration against Russia and China
will become increasingly ineffective as the old unipolar global order continues to fade
away.
Most of US Russiagate charges are projection. Russiagate is a color
revolution of the block of neoliberals and neocons to depose Trump. They are
afraid of too many skeletons in the closet to allow Trump to finish his
term. And for a right reason. Trump is unpredictable and he at one moment
can turn on them and start revealing unpleasant truth about Bush II and
Obama.
But rumors about the demise of the US neoliberal empire are slightly
exaggerated ;-). Without providing an alternative model to neoliberalism and
without ethnological superiority China does not stand a chance.
Notable quotes:
"... Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia. ..."
"... Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth! ..."
"... Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA) ..."
"... other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time! ..."
It was around 1898, when America first starting thinking it was the center of the universe.
In that year the U.S. intervened in Cuba's war for independence and proceeded to take over
parts of the decrepit Spanish Empire, from Latin America to the Philippines. Shortly before, in
1893, the U.S. overthrew the Queen of Hawaii on behalf of U.S.-backed sugar and pineapple
plantation owners.
That led to a long history of political interference in other countries, in the form of
destabilization, coups and invasions. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, a narrative was
fostered to justify expanding NATO to Russia's borders.
In the last four years, anti-Russian propaganda has reached a fever pitch: lies about
Russia's "expansionism" in Ukraine; hype about Russia's "meddling" in the U.S. elections,
creating an existential "threat to democracy;" unproven allegations of Russia using chemical
weapons to poison the Skripals in London. Experts are trotted out on major media to further the
narrative without hard evidence. Together with think-tanks, the American and British media run
these stories daily with almost no counter news or opinions. Through endless repetition,
allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these
unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia.
In 2004, journalist Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times magazine that a top White
House strategist for President George W. Bush -- identified later as Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy
White House Chief of Staff -- told him, "We're an empire now; we create our own reality."
Swiss journalist, Guy Mettan, in his 2017 book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious
Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria, writes that the West's psycho-social pathology
about Russia dates back over 1,000 years to the division of Christendom between the Orthodox
and Roman churches. The U.S. is a relative newcomer to this, but seeks perhaps its biggest
role.
" More than merely dominate, the American superpower now seeks to control history," Mettan
says.
Myth of Russian Expansionism
The astute University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer exposed how the West provoked
the Ukraine crisis in his 2014 Foreign Affairs article,
"Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin."
But the American foreign policy establishment and media remain committed to the suppression of
facts about the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and the resulting escalating tensions with Russia.
Ignoring or fabricating evidence, the U.S. and NATO persist in
lying that Russia has expansionist goals in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. Russia is helping
ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who are resisting the coup, Crimea (which had been part
of Russia since 1783 and transferred by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954) held a referendum in
2014 in which the public voted to rejoin Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in to
help fight Western and Gulf-backed jihadists trying to violently overthrow the government, as
even then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted .
Another scholar, Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University
of Kent, writes in his latest book, Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order, that the
Ukraine crisis crystallized the profound differences between Russia and the West, differences
that are not just a replay of the "Cold War."
Simply put, under the banner of the indispensable "liberal world order," neo-conservative
warriors and "democracy"-spreading-"humanitarian-interventionists"
are promoting the Russophobia "reality" to justify American hegemony.
Ditching Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn : Ditched when he turned on America. (Wikimedia Commons)
One of the greatest illustrations of the centuries-old Russophobia, says Mettan in his 2017
book, is the case of Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
" During the 1990s, I was shocked by the way the West treated Solzhenitsyn," Mettan wrote.
"For decades, we had published, celebrated, and acclaimed the great writer as bearing the torch
of anti-Soviet dissidence," but only when he criticized his communist Russia. But after moving
to the U.S., when Solzhenitsyn showed a preference for privacy "rather than attending
anticommunist conferences, western media and academics began to distance themselves."
And when Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia and spoke out against Russian 'westernizers' and
liberals who denied Russian interests, he was labeled "an outdated, senile writer," though he
had not changed his fundamental views on freedom.
After the mid-July, Trump-Putin Helsinki summit, there were countless mass media delusions
and hysteria against U.S.-Russia ties, reminiscent of the Hearst newspaper empire's propaganda
that whipped up a frenzy to support the empire-building war against Spain in 1898. Professor
Stephen Kinzer vividly described the unsuccessful battle by prestigious anti-imperialists
against the power of the Hearst propaganda in his latest book, The True Flag:Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire."
Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed
U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia.
Do we have enough good sense left to follow the advice of Henry David Thoreau: "Let us
settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion,
and prejudice till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality."
Or, as I thought when I visited Galileo's house that day in the Florentine hills: the world
does not revolve around America.
Jean Ranc is a retired psychologist/research associate at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wonderful observations that challenge the complete and utter madness of our times here in
the U.S., and the West in general. The inquisitorial "accusations" leveled against Putin and
Russia by the West bear no more resemblance to "reality" than the lunatic accusations that
the Holy Inquisition leveled against "witches," "heretics" and "non-believers" for centuries
as it used terror to consolidate power. Given the ever more shrill and painfully persistent
nature of these ongoing nonsense anti-Russian accusations – it would appear more and
more of us in the West are falling into the category of – "non-believers."
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:45 pm
A very good post Gary. The West is decadent and corrupt.Whatever high moral grounds the
West once held, I am afraid they are either forgotten or totally gone.
Delightful piece to read, great comments as usual. I can only add that the neocolonialists
who don't want to give up leading the US over the edge, as mike says "into the abyss", will
be forced to change their ways, well stated by Babylon and others. The tragedy of what they
have done by their narcissistic, egoistic, delusional misleading, is that they have wrecked
the lives of millions worldwide. But of course, that is the story of deluded conquerors until
they meet their own end. I welcome the sun setting on the "American Century"; a sharp reset
awaits us all but we should welcome it.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Jessika: the saddest part in all this is that they still continue to wreck and decimate
lives worldwide. It is like a cancer eating and obliterating every thing in their path. A
very incisive post.
The cancer is psychopathy! These people have no conscience or empathy. They are liars and
manipulators. They treat people like objects to be used and abused. Until America admits that
we've had a substantial percentage of psychopathic leaders and mentality, from the Puritans
forward, we will never recover from the psychological, social, economic, political, legal,
religious destruction this ilk has forced upon the rest of us. It took me deep research and
therapy to discover that psychopaths project themselves onto the rest of us and then claim we
are somehow damaged, flawed or have sinful human nature. The problem has always been the
psychopaths among us (1%) who have created hierarchies and placed themselves atop them. They
have bamboozled most of us with their lies but as we wake up to their games, we can kick them
out of power and we can create a country of the 99% with conscience and empathy rather than a
country of slaveowners and deluded "Israelites" who believed they had the right to exploit,
enslave, kill
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am
It's not sad, it's what's deathcult tyrants & dying Empires do, they take as many
victims as they can, once they realise the end is nigh! It's a mass shooter mentality &
it's disgraceful!
JR , August 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm
HI Jessika,
I tried to find you while I was still living in NH as I got the idea you live there as well.
I had lived in the Dartmouth area in the 70's but the brutal winters were too much! this time
around so I returned to my home base here in Chapel Hill. If you'd like to be in touch, you
can reach me at my old-but-still-good Santa Fe address: [email protected]
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 5:37 pm
American egotism is legendary. It is the defining mark of the breed. Ignorant know-it-alls
lead us confidently into the abyss.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Mike: If American leaders that are in control of the country have studied history of any
empire, they would come to the realization that empires do not last forever. The illogical
part is that empire's life expectancy has been more or less the same worldwide. And like an
opened book the end is closing in and they know it.
Realist , August 28, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Excellent bit of necessary truth-telling. Too bad it won't be read in most of America, not
because the people would reject its premise, but because their keepers just won't let them
see it in the highly manipulated mass media.
America has repeatedly become what it most professes to hate: first an onerous empire like
Spain, then a pack of fascists like Nazi Germany, and now totalitarian tyrants like the
Soviets. Welcome to the truth, the one NOT fabricated by Rove's inheritors of empire.
Babyl-on , August 28, 2018 at 4:32 pm
This thought is so important to understand if you are to make any sense of the new
multi-polar world which does not revolve around the failing Western empire.
China's Belt and Road is a catalyst but China will benefit only through the
interconnection of the entire Eurasian land mass – sooner than you think, high-speed
trains will cross the steppes. That is the new world the Enlightenment era is dead the
Eurasian era is opening. Eurasia will trade most naturally with Africa and it will prosper
because The US Empire is the last of the Enlightenment white European empires.
When you consider the integration of the great Eurasian land mass for the first time is
history (the ancient Silk Road writ large) it's easy to forget about a US over there
separated by all that water from the thriving markets.
Those oceans which protected the center of power from attack now are a big disadvantage in
trade.
We are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment and the end of Empire which it spawned.
China is not imperial, Russia is not imperial – no country today seeks empire but
the US and they are failing in every way. Western Liberal Democracy also died with the
Enlightenment, new forms of governance and culture will develop, the sky really is the limit,
now that the old dead Enlightenment is moving out of the way.
It would be a brighter future if not for that pesky climate.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:51 am
Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures &
keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance &
hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth!
Russia
& China are the future with the one belt, one road initiative & America is being left
in the rear view mirror & is on the path to total oblivion thanks to its warmongering
ways! The end of this corrupt American Empire can't come soon enough for people who want to
live in peace!
Egocentrism isn't just a Donald Trump thing, it's an American thing. America's
never-ending RussiaGate narrative is a classic example of psychological projection. It can't
be US who has the problem, it must be THEM who has the problem. Time to own it.
paraphrasing J. Pilger -- America should leave the rest of the world
alone -- leave it alone
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:15 am
Yes, I second what Mr Pilger stated & I will add a few more requests? "Leave the
World" alone! Stop your Warmongering interference in other Countries affairs! Immediately
stop all your murderous Wars, Coups & Financial & Economic terrorism such as
weaponising the dollar & Trade sanctions to illegally punish other Nations! Abide by
International Laws & the U.N. charter! Remove your 800 bases from around the World &
stick to your own backyard! Stop being the Worlds Policeman because no one asked you to
perform this role! Look after your own people first & stop wasting trillions of dollars
on the pointless & stupid Military Industrial Complex! Ban Campaign lobbyists & big
money from Politics! Jail all corrupt Corporates & thieving Bankers, Politicians &
seize their assets! These are a few things for a start! There are many more things you could
do more numerous to name here, but the main thing is LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! We are sick to
death of this American Empire!
Sally Snyder , August 28, 2018 at 2:28 pm
Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Less than half of Americans believe that Russia's interference in the 2016 election made a
difference to the final outcome and nearly six in ten Americans believe that it is important
that Washington continue to improve relations with Moscow.
Jeff Harrison , August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm
When you get to the end of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six volumes of dense,
erudite prose which details the failings of a decadent society, Gibbon lets you in on a
secret. The Roman Empire was militarily defeated. Not all at once, mind. But militarily
defeated nonetheless. Consider what that means for the US.
RnM , August 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Rome became a victim of its success, being overstretched beyond their war technology
(horses, shields, swords and siege machines.)
My inability and unwillingness to predict the end of the rise of The Empire of "We the
People" and its brand of War Technologies, is due to my close perspective and life-long
Bernaiseian (?sp) brainwashing by the mass media, which, thankfully, has, since 2016, been
dealt a blow to the mask on their (the corporate media's) Totalitarian nature.
Their claim to
One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than
100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology
development system (DARPA). So, in the American attempt to surpass the Romans, the Empire of
We the People (as a Totalitarian dystopia) may well be thwarted by the spread of open
information. I hope so. The alternative might be very difficult to defeat.
Jeff, if you enjoyed Gibbons, I think you would really enjoy Michael Parenti's, "The
Assassination of Julius Caesar". There are so many parallels between the late Roman Republic
and today's America. Michael got his PhD in political science and history from Yale and
writes "people's history". He argues convincingly that Caesar was assassinated -- - not for
being an egomaniac and dictator -- - but because he stood up against the most elite in the
senate by seeking reforms that would benefit the masses. He actually argues that Gibbons
wrote as a historian from the priviledged class and therefore never condemned the senate for
exploiting the masses.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:34 am
Yes, what it means,& if History is anything to go by, that other Nations may reach a
saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the
realization that this
crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped,
once & for all time!
The Roman Empire never saw the Barbarian hordes such as the
Visigoth's, Huns & Vandals coming until it was to late! Will the American Empire see
there downfall coming? 9/11 proved the arrogant American Empire couldn't even see that event
coming, due to their own hubris & complacency!
Magnitsky story is the textbook, perfect illustration of the level
of control of CIA over media. Almost everything in official story is a lie,
still it is never challenged.
A perfectly good article, I'm sure, but why diffuse ourselves [and engender feelings of
fear and hopelessness as you express] when a strategic pressure point has presented?
Johnstone makes no mention of Bill Browder. Nor do the [100, so far] commenters.
BILL BROWDER is a key figure in the anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria. The notorious Trump
Tower meeting was about the Magnitsky Act, a fabrication by Browder to hide his financial
crimes. Browder "testified" in the Senate expressly to demonize Putin. Browder's contacts in
the IC, the Jewish Lobby, and the fawning media have enabled his propaganda assault this
week. He's appeared -- unchallenged, virtually unquestioned -- on countless talk shows. But
he's been running scared at the mention of interrogation by Russians. There are huge holes in
his story, made clear in his deposition in the Prevezon case. The truth will bring him down!
And perhaps his Deep State supporters, along with him.
Ask your Senators if they've heard/read Browder's 2015 deposition in the Prevezon
case. (See comment 161 under The Untouchable Mr. Browder? by Israel Shamir for
links.)
Research links to primary sources on #Browdergate -
...BTW, have you seen "THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES" that Phil Giraldi
posted today? Debunking anti-Russian criminal sociopaths like Bill Browder will go a long way
to improving relations. Not to mention easing pressure on the unfortunate Trump.
Full research primary links available here, including Browder's 2015 deposition in the
U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings case. Every Senator who voted to support Browder should see this.
[Any who already have, double shame!]
"... However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated. ..."
"... Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs. ..."
"... U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America. ..."
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works for
Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest of APCO's many
clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered in Guernsey. The trust
tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch got out of Russia before he was
jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after
his arrest in Russia) and for the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president
and CEO, is a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition to
Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given a distinguished
service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq
from their bases in Iraq they were trying to overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once
officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, has become a pet
instrument in U.S. and Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally brought him into
the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight of the House Intelligence
Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named him as
one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused Trump of illicit
financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's own account, he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled Steele
reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence agents, to Victoria
Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts. These included the infamous
"Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old friend Sidney Blumenthal – a
particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton – gave him notes written by a more
mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer, repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media before being
revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate the "Russiagate"
investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited but the investigation goes on
and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from "Russian agents"
and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with so much else in Washington,
double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure that effectively ended
post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington and Moscow. This act was based on a
highly contentious version of the November 16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei
Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl
Browder, head of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's
(banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights
crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in
Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical
treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit
Russian charges against himself.
In any case
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a
much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and
later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S.
citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to
extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
, "When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose economic and
travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand corruption. Browder decided this
could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky. He initiated a campaign that led to the
enactment of the Magnitsky Act. Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts,
including Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom."
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press
conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing U.S.
authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing
Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and
former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was
possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999,
back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote, "Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the U.S. attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a criminal case. But
there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general can provide no such assistance in a
politically motivated case." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there. Back in 1999,
when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the senior State Department official
managing U.S.-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we
need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's
clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically
motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital
Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the
"lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former
Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing foreign
principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the attorney does not try to
influence policy at the behest of his client." However, by disseminating anti-Magnitsky
material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was "clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore
in violation of FARA filing requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass
the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of
"Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities
scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia.
Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich
security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their
own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on
principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on
principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers
itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its
affairs.
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying
to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. Russian leaders
clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that historic processes do not depend on some
childish trick played on somebody's computer.
U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to
allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are
"unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world
sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such
interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to
Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the
country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by
America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public
opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests
including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of
the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress.
"... The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are ready to leap off the cliff. ..."
"... For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of institutional power – by creation of a myth ..."
"... So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else? ..."
"... In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon! ..."
"... The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility – and perhaps this one too. ..."
"... This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction. ..."
"... In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. ..."
"... Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real base of support. ..."
"... It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot footsoldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them. ..."
"... Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990 describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully prevents that spending on useless weapons deminishes. The history of the later Roman empire, the army in control. ..."
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin
meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of
mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and
most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are
ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of
power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of
institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd
behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a
story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections
in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to
leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most
voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would
mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be
knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the
notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against
poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other
influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some
for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating
millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics
constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of
evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so
much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi,
the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the
hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus,
perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on
Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much
more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those
"revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working
against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning
the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of
accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to
normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the
American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They
have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in
the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign
intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the
implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to
themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small
repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even
brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of
US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting
with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only
story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our
democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a
yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in
advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big
stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few
exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who
are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know
what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an
escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country
to the Russian enemy. Treason!"
This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their
job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find
analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For
example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers
an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more
plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a
reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus
avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United
States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon
their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's
policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of
agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner
take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project,
no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been
assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home
for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo,
murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the
destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless
countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of
Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the
world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic
Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor
Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's
expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All
Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in
marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the
two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to
Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to
work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work
jointly."
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of
Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have
much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better
than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow
neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from
Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility –
and perhaps this one too.
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open
new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a
political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable
power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure
continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You
can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery
you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity.
Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
This mass hysteria over a country hostile to both democracy and gay rights (it's hard to
tell which one is worse) has been seen in the west before. It's very reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq war in 2003. I mean what's next? Are they
gonna accuse Russia of having WMD's too?
They are pretty good at providing false evidence of WMD's, I wouldn't be surprised if they
stage another presentation of evidence of Russian WMD's at UN, complete with satellite images
of mobile trucks equipped with Uranium enrichment technology and all that.
That Nikki Halley can be quite persuasive, you know. I just hope that the world doesn't
buy that BS again. Russia having WMD's? That's preposterous. They tricked us the last time, I
hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore.
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too
just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous
financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real
base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known
than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the
YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos
.
On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen
Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of
support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various
offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents
"populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who
shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.
Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is
Joaquín Flores:
People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done
for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If
there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to
the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a
Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and
identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we
have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric
of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the
left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the
fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.
The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from?
What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US
empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad
thing.
I hear you, and I sympathize, but this is not mass dementia. The oligarchy that runs the United States was worried that Donald Trump might actually
(!!) take some consideration for the national interest of the people of the United States of
America. That will never do.
This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational,
breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And
it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless
foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else
besides.
It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot footsoldiers, screaming in
mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff
Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about
them.
In my view, at the moment the deed is done. The president signed onto the report
acknowledged the he accepts the report has even gone as far to say, he blames Pres. Putin
Another backtrack, just muddies the waters, and mat be acceptable because no one wants to
accept the real consequences of a president who has repudiated the one state president he
most desired to make a deal with -- the jig is up.
Whether kabuki theater or real gamesmanship –
A threshold has been crossed and uncrossing it is going to be tricky and in my further
humiliation for the wh. The analysis here mattered before the president agreed with the
report. But when he did, this analysis, becomes moot. Having a chit chat about de-escalating
nuclear tensions is quaint in light of the president acknowledging that russia has in fact
undermined the US democratic process. This is a serious charge and no amount of changing the
subject, crying foul, or pretending it was all a big misunderstanding is going to change
that.
I think it would have been prudent for the president to hold fire in Helsinki and read the
report and then responded . He did make any of those choices. It matters not how exposed the
establishment in wanton eagerness to have their way, wh has embraced the matter. it is on
record and . . . oh well. I see merit in maintaining his original position of disbelief --
however, the president did a complete about face -- and there is no question of that or the
implications.
Hillary lost the election when she could not walk. she lost a shoe, she was shown in the
van, and shoe was thrown after her. And that was arranged by Russians.
Having a title "Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment" and approaching this effort as
"mass insanity","demented chorus" etc. is simply delusional. They know exactly what they are doing and, it appears, they are doing it well.
The are able to create their own reality.
What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.).
It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this
era of instant communications it's .sobering.
This constant shitting on "them" and their servants is fine and dandy but feels as just a
feel good exercise.
Perhaps some effort could be spared in trying to analyze and explain common people approach
to all this. The buying, hook and sinker, that manufacture.
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false
all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't,
for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.
In my opinion, no dementia.
Too many careers and institutions are built on continuing hostility towards Russia.
First ECB President Duisenberg's ph d thesis had as title 'The economic consequences of
peace', something like that, his conclusion was that demilitarisation was possible
economically, when controlled sensibly.
Did anyone read 'The Iron Mountain Report', I never quite knew what to make of it, but it
also is about if demilitarisation is possible.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully prevents that spending on useless weapons
deminishes.
The history of the later Roman empire, the army in control.
The Russians are by nature cautious. They are a conglomerate of individuals, many of whom
remember times when they would be sent by communist tyrants to a gulag for Wrongthink. Of
course they're cautious.
How Hillary Clinton could even run for presidency after the murder of Moammer Gaddafi and
Libya destruction, in any decent civilisation and society.
That's planetary shame and the most important question, not DNC hack or anything else, which
just trace in wrong direction.
So, Trump should grow some balls and arrest not just her but Barack Obama as well on the
same charges, as war criminals as they are, and prove that he really deserves to be
trusted.
And sacrifice himself in the process if needed as that would do any honest true US president,
and he knew what to expect from such position from the start.
It's not TV reality show, as still it is.
All he cares about is his ego and popularity, and he is loosing both.
Israel lobby finally see that they put their money in the wrong bank.
I intend to believe more that West, namely USA and UK the most, keeps them more hostage in
uncertainty for decades than in some Jewish conspiracy.
Also, I also believe that only Russia can guaranty Israel security and peace in the
region.
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the
influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising
influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he
does not have much choice.
Saudi Arabia spent 40 billion dollars helping Saddam's Iraq in its war against Iran, the
cost of US efforts in the Syria civil war have largely been met by the Saudis. The coming
attack on Iran will be as much to please the Saudis as to lock Israel into West Bank Arab
expulsion mode. The Israel Lobby will is not pushing Donald Trump, they are playing catch up
with him. Trump has already shown with the Jerusalem recognition that he is encouraging
Israel in unilateral courses of action.
No, I agree with the assessment in this article and its title: the establishment is
dangerously detached from reality right now. Our stagnant and locked-down political culture
in the West allowed the "elite" to develop a false sense of security and and certainty. They
thought they had things pretty much figured out a few years ago but now they're genuinely
panicked.
Looking to this circus from Russia, to those insane speaches, insulting caricatures in
MSM, I understand the huge amount of rotteness of Western society, mainly its high top part,
but not only. Even here in comments (not in this particularly article) the percentage of
trolls and brainwashed idiots exceeds all I could've imagined. So I stopped writing here
– no sense, I believe that something can change only after the dramatic changes in
US/West society and that is possible only after a big war/revolution.
So, I'm afraid our future is vague
I think you are right. Over the last four years I have been amazed again and again at how
broken the political culture of the West has become. It's only outsiders and newcomers to
politics who give me hope. I'm thinking of people like Trump or the new governments in Italy
and Austria.
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how
false all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online
can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general. Not holding my breath.
I fully agree with this sentiment. The only reason the evil bastards who control our
society can get away with their treachery is because most of the American people are out to
lunch on the most important issues of our time. If the sheeple were to take responsibility to
inform themselves of what is happening today they would be able to see the lies they are
being constantly exposed to as just that–lies. And then, they could put down the beer
and turn off the damn sports channel and get angry at what has happened to their country.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for ignorant people to remain
ignorant.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general
Ma-a-ate! Let me give you a quick refresher on "1984:"
1st, the inner party – that's my ccc @ 25.
2nd, the outer party – that's Ike's MI-complex, which I expand to:
The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate
sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with
corruption.
a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches
add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies
We can add the -plexes to their main 'allied criminal regimes' and get FUKUSIL.
3rd, the proles in the book are the proles in real life.
4th, 'hate sessions' are mediated by the US/Z-MMH = corrupt&venal Media (aka press,
radio + TV, incl. PFBCs = publicly financed broadcasters), Madison Ave., Hollywood etc..
5th, as well as "All politicians lie!" [thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward], most
politicians are a) ccc-puppets and b) traitors to us, we the people and our countries.
Fazit: Even if most proles really were switched-on = fully and fairly informed, their
votes would still mean nothing since there is a disconnect [my 5th.] Unless you are thinking
'pitch-forks and tumbrels,' there's nothing effective that we, the people can do.
"1984″ is pretty-well exactly our reality, and here is a bit of proof:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who *manipulate* this unseen
mechanism of society *constitute an invisible government* which is the true ruling power of
our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
There is a lie in there, surrounding "must cooperate" – it's simply not true –
but worse, worst: " an invisible government ." The latter is what is termed 'deep
state' tyranny; the foul, un-elected and criminal puppet-string manipulators (part of the
1%) – again, the ccc.
The lie-cloud they choke the sheople's minds with is deliberately 'spiced' with
scientifically designed psychological propaganda, and that's what does the majority of
dumbing-down damage.
Ta ra! The Bernays haze. Choke on that.
PS Q: Is there any hope at all? A: Apart from hope being hopeless policy, there *could* be
a solution, whereby a big enough proportion of the 1%, a decent portion [should such a thing
exist] could call a halt to the ccc and its murder-most-foul depredations.
Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits and runs
agents in favored criminal syndicates in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual
trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is not to
interdict the trade but to control it. CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up
their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing JFK. CIA protects its
criminal proteges with their chartered impunity. They call off law enforcement with the magic
words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets exposed, CIA's criminal
cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.
RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime
until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple.
Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher
Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government.
Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA
handlers without the other agency's knowledge.
Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.
Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're
enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in
the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation"
associations.
Don't know if the Cabal controls the Homeland but it certainly seems to exert a great deal
of its influence and it also becomes apparent that the Crowd has a long history with the
Russians as well thus given that, the whole thing appears to be a three ring circus created
to avoid being, in all honesty, noticed by the dumbed down bozos who are shouting loudest in
the bleachers in time it won't amount to a bag of beans!
I wonder, were her "speaking fees" from AIPAC and Saudis also arranged by the Russians?
Those pesky Russians are everywhere, like Christian God. Did you check under your bed
lately?
I think you are mistaken trying to rationalize the behavior of the political class and
their puppet masters. I believe the real driver are not antidepressants, but an obscene
greed, which is so blinding that it made MIC profiteers forget that to enjoy the fruits of
their thievery they have to be alive.
Thank you, Michael, for your very interesting perspective. Considering all the factors, it
appears most likely that Trump's apparent groveling was simply the deference an
underdeveloped country like the US owes to a strategically-invulnerable great power with
superior governance.
Trump probably concluded that he and America have much to learn from Russia's
categorically superior human rights performance in all the most comprehensive categories,
especially in comparison with US bad-faith evasion of a disgracefully derelict subset of
the core conventions, and failures prompting multiple urgent follow-on inquiries:
The summit was a mission civilizatrice for Russia. Trump doubtless knows that the whole
world has seen the facts exhaustively documented above by preeminent human rights experts and
independent civil society organizations. A bit of humility on Trump's part might help to
restore lost US world standing.
Which of the treaty bodies' conclusions and recommendation do you think would do most to
mitigate the international disgrace of the USA?
The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness
is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked
numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees,
become orphans and all other manner of evil. Not least of all has been it's creation and
patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive
blind spot to the war criminality of all this that their country has committed against the
peace of the world. Instead they're being stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's
the US that's been on the march everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's
aggression as being aggressors for being willing to defend themselves. It's all
upside-down.
(BTW, is this scenario really so far-fetched? After all, Russia did nothing but complain
to the UN when the US angels of death destroyed both Iraq and Libya. Could not the same
fate soon await Iran?)
You're omitting Syria. It should be pretty obvious that the Russians and the Chinese
aren't going to sit back and allow Uncle Scam to destroy Iran when they wouldn't allow it to
happen to a much less important country like Syria.
TDS is a convenient shorthand for this form of disconnect from reality. That said it is
absolutely fascinating to see and puzzle over this geopolitical tectonic event. The old
narrative is crumbling, with the result that people like Lauri are fighting desperately to
preserve their "sanity", dependent as it is on their tribal submission to the old order and
its old narrative (its timeworn lies).
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Max Planck
By which he means that people persist in believing in those "truths" (their belief system)
they have held for a lifetime. Only when they die out will a new, revised belief system
replaced the old. The same in geopolitics as in science.
Assad still is there.
The USA was unable to remove Assad, how would they destroy Iran ?
The USA has no idea of what Iran built deep in the rocks.
Trump screaming in capitals on Twitter against Iran, sign of weakness, in my opinion.
American dementia is not new. It is current but after the false flags of almost all of our
(US) wars going back as far as the Barbary Pirates, Americans have thrived on being the good
guys in an evil world. We are SO GOOD, and the world thinks we are perfect and want to be
part of US so much, that any other thought is treasonous.
The fact that getting along with Russia is necessary to NOT create armageddon, is
irrelevant to the typical citizen because no matter how wrong, we are blessed and perfect in
the eyes of the gawd we pretend to believe in.
Now, now, don't underestimate the Donald! The man has razor sharp brains, is an
accomplished mover/rouser of people, and I imagine has oodles of strategic abilities. Look at
the facts, hard facts, not at perceptions. No man made tons of legitimate, legal money
without possessing some qualities of genius. Never in US history has an outsider come in,
overturned the political establishment, taken on the whole pack of media-hyenas, won the
election capitalising on the weakness of all his opponents, then tried to do what he said he
would do. Who could have imagined that seemingly simple-minded tweets, in simple vocabulary,
would be used to beat down the collective might of the massed media? His tweets scored over
their collective shrieks and howls! The power of simplicity, no?
This guy is complex, clever,
and a very astute strategist. He puts on the rude, crude and buffoonish show to get peoples'
attention – and he did get that, did he not? That is called strategy and real
smarts.
UWell, we here in Russia know all this (about Browder) for quite a time. What new did you
find? It's just one story in long list of those written and spoken for western idiots like
Scripals, MH17, chemicals in Syria and WMD in Iraq, Russian meddling in f-n US elections and so on.
Eat it all dummies.
"... What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence. ..."
"... So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all. ..."
"... Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework. ..."
What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated
shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of
anyone who doesn't toe the line.
And Trump feeds off this by casting everyone as a leach who has been sucking off the US's
breast for decades. It doesn't matter the issue, to Trump US economic fragility is a hammer and
every trade and military partner a nail to be bashed over the head to pay their way.
What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten
the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and
weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence.
Trump is against that in principle, but not against the US maintaining as much of the empire
as possible.
So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business
with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it
all.
The latest major one was with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This meeting wasn't expected
to provide anything concrete, only vague assurances that projects like the Nordstream 2
pipeline goes through.
But, no breakthroughs on Crimea or Ukraine were expected nor delivered. It was, however, an
opportunity for both Putin and Merkel to be humanized in the European media. Between Putin's
attending Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl's wedding as well as the garden party photo
op background for their talk, this meeting between them was a bit of a 'charm tour' to assist
Merkel in the polls while expanding on Putin's humanity post World Cup and Helsinki.
That said, however, the statement by Merkel's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, about the need
for a new financial payment system which bypasses the US-dominated SWIFT system was the big
bombshell.
Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations
of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran.
Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than
this.
The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's
ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework.
While KYC and AML laws can at least have the appearance of validity in attempting to stop
illegal activity, targeted sanctioning is simply Orwellian.
It politicizes any and all economic activity the world over. Just look at the recent reasons
for these sanctions – unproven allegations of chemical weapons usage and electioneering.
Recent actions by the US have driven this point home to its 'allies' with stunning clarity.
Why do you think Putin brought up Bill Browder's name at the Helsinki press conference? He
knows that Browder's story is a lie and it's a lie that has been used as the foundation for the
type of political repression we're seeing today.
The US is blocking the simplest of transactions in the dollar now, claiming that any use of
the dollar is a global privilege which it can revoke at a whim. Aside from the immorality of
this, that somehow dollars you traded goods or services for on the open market are still
somehow the property of the U.S to claw back whenever it is politically convenient, this
undermines the validity of the dollar as a rational medium of exchange for trade.
This is why after the first round of sanctions over the reunification with Crimea Putin
ordered the development of a national electronic payment system. He rightly understood that
Russia needed a means by which to conduct business that was independent of US political
meddling.
So, to me, if Heiko Maas is serious about the threat posed by continued use of the dollar in
EU trade, he should look to Putin for guidance on building a system separate from SWIFT.
Moreover, Maas' statement didn't go out to the world without Merkel's approval. This tells
me that this was likely the major topic of conversation between her and Putin over the weekend.
Because a payment system that skirts the dollar is one the US can't control.
It took the Russians longer than they should have to develop MIR. Putin complained about how
slow things went because too many within the Bank of Russia and the financial community could
be thought of as fifth columnists for the West.
It's also why development of the crypto-ruble and Russia's policy on cryptocurrencies has
been so slow. It took Putin publicly ordering the work done by a certain time to get these
tasks completed. In the end, it shouldn't take the EU long to spin up a SWIFT-compliant
internal alternative. It is, after all, just code.
And that's why so many of the US's former satraps are now flexing their geopolitical muscle.
The incentives aren't there anymore to keep quiet and go along. Alternatives exist and will be
utilized.
I don't expect the EU brass to do much about this issue, the threat may be all that is
needed to call Trump's bluff. But, if in the near future you see an announcement of MIR being
accepted somewhere in the EU don't be surprised.
Because what used to be a node of political stability and investor comfort is now a tool of
chaos and abuse. And abusing your customers is never a winning business model in the long run.
Customers of the dollar will remind the US of that before this is over.
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question – from
the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton –
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: ..."
"... The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW. ..."
"... Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our votes count! How stupid are we? ..."
With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider
that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384
– Seditious conspiracy:
".. or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United
States,"
If moral force is deemed a correct legal interpretation, the growing number of men and women
becoming aware of the scandal, in the United States particularly and around the Earth
generally, could face 20 years of imprisonment. Of course, "by force" in the clause is meant as
kinetic or physical force, so people demanding the profoundly consequential truth about
Browder-Magnitsky have nothing in to worry about.
Political reality in America reveals that the two-party system is mythical, but actually
that Americans are experiencing a one-party structure serving members of the transnational
capitalist class – named and described in the recently published book "Giants: The Global
Power Elites" by Sonoma State (CA) Professor Peter Phillips (co-founder of Project Censored
with Mickey Huff).
Confirmation is found in the unanimous -- total silence over the historic magnitude
Browder-Magnitsky scandal of John Brennan(D), Gina Haspell(R), Loretta Lynch(D), Jeff
Sessions(R), Ben Cardin(D), John McCain(R), all 535 U.S. elected representatives(D, R and I),
Hillary Clinton(D), Mike Pompeo(R), Joseph Biden(D), Mike Pence(R), Barack Obama(D), Donald
Trump(R)
The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is
unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international
relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity
learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW.
Replybackwardsevolution , August 17, 2018 at 3:36 am
Jerry – I saw a Youtube video by Professor Peter Phillips a few months back where he
outlined the concentration of wealth by these transnational corporations. It was a very good
video, and he's right – something definitely needs to be done about these people. They
are going to either kill us with war or kill us by ruining the planet. It's like they're
addicted to greed and cannot help themselves, almost like a drug addict. We'll have to stop
them.
Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that
these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part
of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our
votes count! How stupid are we?
I don't know where it's all going to end, but we'd better start fighting back before these
addicts take us all out.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
MAGNITSKIY MOVIE. An authorised
version is available on Vimeo here. I urge you to watch it: not only
does it complete destroy Browder's case, it is an interesting detective process as the
film-maker gradually perceives the inconsistencies and manipulations. Browder's story has been
extremely important at setting up the anti-Russia dancing mania : if it's a lie, then what?
'Bill Browder Should Be in Jail' Says Philip Giraldi, Widely Respected Pundit and Retired
CIA Officer The Browder story keeps getting more and more airplay, and it is not
complimentary to him. Patrick Fleming 10 min ago | 29
13 Giraldi, one of
the most popular writers on the conservative Unz.com , is one of the superstars of the alt-media landscape. He has
been outspoken about the pernicious effects of Israel and wealthy pro-Israeli American Jews on
American politics. You can see many of his articles on RI here .
This was from a radio interview with Lee Stranahan, formerly of Breitbart, now with Sputnik,
the Russian state-owned news agency.
You can listen to the whole thing here. Key quotes below:
"He's basically been the one who appears on the networks, appears before Congress," "
"He is someone that they've [US officials] decided has to be the spokesperson in terms of
what's going on in Russia, and yet he has a hidden agenda as a potential criminal."
"I think the story is growing; I'm seeing more and more references to Browder in a
negative way."
"The problem is that we have to get this at a level where Browder is doing his damage, and
that's in the mainstream media, places like The New York Times, and also to have some people
in Congress begin to speak up and say, 'Hey, what about the Magnitsky Act and everything that
we did to provoke a crisis with Russia based on what Browder was telling us?'".
"Once you understand that, you realize that Browder, if anything, should be in jail."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
"... When Germany starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped down as if it had said 'lebensraum'. ..."
"... Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are all committed Atlanticists. ..."
"... But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength. ..."
Lovin' it: the recent call by the German Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, to engage in
dialogue with Moscow only from a "position of unity and strength," Shoigu reminded his
counterpart that, while Russia seeks peace, it will not tolerate being coerced.
"After everything Germany has done to our country, I think, they should not talk on the
issue for another two hundred years," Shoigu said. "Ask your grandparents about their
experience of talking to Russia from the position of strength. They will probably be able to
tell you."
Exactly; it seems it was almost instantly impolite to remind the Germans of their Nazi past,
along with their aspiration to achieve their goals through military force. When Germany
starts up talking again about 'negotiating from a position of strength', it should be slapped
down as if it had said 'lebensraum'.
The EU has to know that it is not frightening Russia
with tough talk, and so it may as well cut it out. Russia by itself would squash the EU like
a bug if they could not go running to Uncle Sam, and NATO as a whole would have a tough time
with China and Russia – it's hard to say who would win, because military victory
depends on a lot of things and you can't plan for them all, but the scale of global
casualties would be so horrific it would be difficult to call any outcome 'victory'.
Washington wants it, because Washington sees the world as existing to support the comfort and
entertainment of Americans, but America cannot do it on its own, so von der Leyen is just
doing America's bidding with the tough talk – the whole barnyard of European political
elites needs to be cleaned out before there can be any hope of better relations, as they are
all committed Atlanticists.
If I were Shoigu, although I cannot fault his actual response, I would have said, "I see
nothing constructive will be accomplished here today, so I will leave you to it, for I have
drills to conduct and work to do. I'll see you next time".
There's nothing wrong in dealing from a position of strength so long as you are prepared
to be reasonable; it merely signifies that you do not have to accept any terms that are
offered. But when NATO speaks of 'dealing from a position of strength', it means 'you know
what will happen if your offer is not as expected'. In the NATO lexicon, there is no such
situation as both sides dealing from a position of strength.
In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice – purportedly a true story about his
experience in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't
add up and demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious
strength of that story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act in 2012 which needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia.
Where he failed in courts of law, however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia
and of Vladimir Putin has been successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As
humanity finds itself on the precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of
mutual understanding and constructive engagement, not demonization.
" and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered "
What an amazing consistency in supporting the Browder/Steele line "Putin did it." Which is
understandable, considering the efforts and investment made into the MSM memes. You made a
very strong impression that the presstituting MSM is your main source of information.
Here are some excerpts from the honest sources.
"Poisoned Russian spy was close to Christopher Steele consultant:"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/poisoned-russian-spy-close-steele-consultant-report-article-1.3862516
"Jonathan Winer was not only a point man for the Steele "dossier" at the State Department in
2016 (and Steele dossiers of yore), he was also a father of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Yes,
longtime Senate staffer Winer is the "old friend" Browder credits with envisioning the
legislative strategy that culminated in passage of the law. (More recently, Winer is serving
as Browder's bulldog-lawyer -- story here.)
"Cardin knew there were problems with Browder's story about Magnitsky's death and yet brought
him into Congress to testify to secure the vote. That's suborning perjury:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions
"Litvinenko's circle also included Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Goldfarb, Vyacheslav
Zharko, and Akhmed Zakayev, most of whom have received asylum in the U.K. In the 1990s, Boris
Berezovsky worked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and George Soros' International Science
Foundation which was headed by Alexander Goldfarb for almost ten years. He was also involved
in money laundering millions of dollars through the Bank of New York and the Republic
Bank of New York which was owned by Bill Browder's now deceased partner, Edmond
Safra:" https://jimmysllama.com/2018/05/07/11191/
– Is not interesting, how so many Browder's connections met an untimely death yet
Browder the Scoundrel is well supported and protected by the "deciders." -- See the fate of a
DOCUMENTARY about Browder, Magnitsky, and a bloody trail of the dead former employees of
Browder whom he used for his very profitable if criminal enterprise.
Alexander Perepelichny" was the key witness who could potentially destroy the scam with
highest political stakes on Magnitsky dossier. As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and
"I do not know" on any substantial inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very
interested in hearing Perepelichny. This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week
before the bill passed the US House: on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead
outside his mansion in London."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We
investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign
in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what
appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump- style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant.
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the
Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to
the Trump campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted
to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning
moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill
Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia ("the way the money
was earned was illegal") without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where
the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million to
Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible for me to
evaluate, Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other
accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by
President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking
system.
Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over
Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely
innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward
the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia.
It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the
American establishment.
"William Felix "Bill" Browder was born into a Jewish family in Chicago, Illinois.
Browder's paternal grandfather was Earl Browder , who was born in Kansas in
1891. [1] He was a
radical and had lived in the Soviet Union for several years from 1927 and married Raisa
Berkman, a Jewish Russian woman, while living there. [1]
After his return to the United States in 1931, [1] Earl Browder
became the leader of the Communist Party USA , and ran for
U.S. president in 1936 and 1940. [13]
After World War II, Earl Browder lost favor with Moscow and was expelled from the American
Communist party . [1]
Remove all jew supremacists from all positions of power, no matter how small-NOW!
Get It, Read It:
"A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" Stephon Mitford Goodson
Great film that takes you from Browder the poor defrauded good guy with a hero lawyer
Magnitsky, to a bad guy with Magnitsky the long employed accountant who made none of the
assertions injected into the Russian -English translations that no one reviewed. But why is
this film banned in the West? (/s)
Not only is Steele part of this shady group but there are ties with Alexander Litvinenko,
Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Perepelichny (who all meet thier untimely deaths) around Bill
Browder (directly/indirectly)"
As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and "I do not know" on any substantial
inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very interested in hearing Perepelichny.
This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before the bill passed the US House:
on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside his mansion in London. The
police investigation did not bring any tangible result but the theory of "Russian mafia"
involved was timely injected into the international media. One month later Magnitsky Act
was signed by president Obama
McCain hand carried the Steele Dossier to Comey. McCain was in Canada when MI6 operative
Sir Andrew Wood enlisted McCain. Then McCain took the bait, no he was working to take Trump
out.
He tried to get out of it in his new book, The Restless Wave.
I've watched McCain for years, I believe he has brain damage from the Vietnam War.
I can understand repealing Jackson-Vanik because it pertained to how U. S. deals with
"non-market economies." Free market mechanisms were introduced in Russia and China since the
1970s so there needed to be changes. However, if there's government corruption in other
nation states, how does this rate an act of Congress? Why repeal the law that required annual
reviews of trade relations and replace it with normalization of trade only to sanction
foreign government officials that have never even had a trial? What about all the financial
misdeeds, money laundering, abuse of the banking system that can be traced to Browder, the
congressional instigator? How does Graham, McCain and Cardin benefit by derailing relations
with Russia over ONE GUY's WORD with a dicey past?
Law
In June 2012, the United
States House Committee on Foreign Affairs reported to the House a bill called the Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 4405). The main intention of the law
was to punish Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei
Magnitsky by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and their use of its banking
system. The legislation was taken up by a Senate panel the next week,
sponsored by Senator Ben
Cardin , and cited in a broader review of the mounting tensions in the international
relationship.
In November 2012, provisions of the Magnitsky bill were attached to a House bill (H.R.
6156) normalizing trade with Russia (i.e., repealing the Jackson–Vanik
amendment ) and Moldova . On December 6, 2012, the U.S. Senate
passed the House version of the law, 92-4. The law was signed by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2012.
In 2016, Congress enacted the Global Magnitsky Act which allows the US Government to
sanction foreign government officials implicated in human rights abuses anywhere in the
world.
In 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by William Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeï Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueï Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeï Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
n 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by Wiliam Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeï Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueï Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeï Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
"... if the notion of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves and billions of tons of gold fills your dreams with visions of red-hot cash flow and ice-cold vodka, then Boris Yeltsin just might find some work for you. – Paul Hofheinz , Fortune Magazine, 23 September 1991 [1] ..."
"... the dirty dishonesty of Russia ..."
"... Russia's evil foundation, ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years – to which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars – was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. The Americans, ..."
"... came for the best of reasons. a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. ..."
"... any suspension of debt payments would result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid and that the ships nearly arrived at the Black Sea ports would turn around. ..."
"... primitive beyond belief ..."
"... parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States ..."
"... The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ..."
"... for inexplicable reasons, ..."
"... harshly worded ..."
"... One cannot really fault the youthful democratic movements for this failure. They were amateurs and innocents with a hazy grasp at best of what they wanted to achieve and no grasp at all of how concretely to achieve it. ..."
"... To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. ..."
"... for the best of reasons ..."
"... Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager and author. His book, banned by Amazon in September 2017 is now available in pdf , kindle , and epub formats at the following link " Grand Deception: Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act and Anti-Russian Sanctions. " Paperback version is now available here . Alex also wrote one book on commodities trading. ..."
The Strangulation of the Russian Economy in the 1990s Was a Deliberate IMF policyAlex Krainer Thu, Aug
2, 2018 | 2,796
64 MORE: History
if the notion of billions of barrels of proven oil reserves and billions of tons of
gold fills your dreams with visions of red-hot cash flow and ice-cold vodka, then Boris
Yeltsin just might find some work for you. – Paul Hofheinz , Fortune Magazine, 23
September 1991
[1]
Shock therapy gave Russia one of the worst and longest economic depressions of the 20th
century, an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe for a peace time crisis, and a criminally
inequitable privatization of public assets. The reasons why things happened this way in Russia
generally aren't well understood in the west. Even among better informed intellectuals, the
failure of shock therapy is often thought to be vaguely related to some sinister flaw in the
Russian society.
It is what Bill Browder characterized as " the dirty dishonesty of Russia ," or "
Russia's evil foundation, " which spawned corruption and criminality of staggering
proportions. In this toxic environment, the sweet fruits of western democracy and capitalism
simply could not grow in spite of the generous benevolence of Russia's western friends.
Such a credulous version of events was never based on any coherent analysis of what
transpired in Russia during the 1990s. Rather, it was based on purposeful perception management
in the Western media. As late as April 2015, Washington Post provided a good example
of this perception management. In an editorial board article, Washington Post informed its
readers that in the 1990s, " thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its
people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years – to
which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars – was aimed at helping
Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in
1991. The Americans, " write Washington Post editors, " came for the best of reasons.
a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and
know-how. "
[2]
Indeed, western role in Russian transition is almost invariably represented as generous
benevolence. While many among Russia's western helpers did come with sincere and honorable
intentions, the whole project, insofar as it was determined by its command and control
structure, was simply a massive, bald-faced criminal enterprise.
IMF's policy dictate
When Jeffrey Sachs drafted his shock therapy recommendations, he estimated that for the
reforms to succeed, Soviet Union would need financial support of about $15 billion per year for
many years. This money was needed for the state to continue administering essential social
services like pensions, health care and food aid for the country's population. But while the
IMF and U.S. government insisted that Moscow abidingly implement the draconian shock therapy
measures, they stubbornly refused to provide the needed financial aid. Sachs also advocated
debt relief for the USSR which, before its collapse in 1991 was already $60 billion behind in
payments to foreign creditors.
When he advised the Bolivian (1985-1986) and Polish (1989-1991) governments in implementing
their own shock therapies, Sachs was able to negotiate a 50% debt write-off for Poland and a
90% write-off for Bolivia. By contrast, Russia would get no debt relief of any kind.
To the contrary, at the G7 summit held in Moscow in November 1991, representatives of the
seven leading western powers insisted that Soviet Union had to continue servicing its external
debts at all cost, even menacing Yegor Gaidar that " any suspension of debt payments would
result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid and that the ships nearly arrived at the
Black Sea ports would turn around. "
[3] Moscow's endeavor to comply with these payment obligations completely depleted the
government's treasury within only three months' time (by February of 1992).
Sachs later reported that in December of 1991 he held discussions with the IMF urging its
representatives to advance the financial support needed for Russia's transition, but they
insisted that Russia didn't need any such assistance and told him that they had instructed the
G7 accordingly. Sachs found the methodology on which the IMF had based their decision, "
primitive beyond belief ," which led him to assume that the IMF was simply "
parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States ."
He was right, of course: as we now know, US aid policy for Russia was indeed determined by
two key US government agencies: the Treasury Department run by Robert Rubin with Lawrence
Summers in charge of Russian affairs, and the National Security Council.
[4]
To be sure, IMF did advance some loans to Russia during its transition period, but the
amounts in question were too small and came too late to provide any meaningful economic or
social relief. In all, between 1993 and 1999 the IMF lent Russia between $30 and $40 billion, a
far cry from the $15 billion per year that were thought necessary to support her
economic reforms. Furthermore, the bulk of IMF loans were given to the oligarch owned private
banks which used them to fund capital flight, bond market speculation and betting against the
ruble.
[5]
There were further problematic aspects to the IMF loans: in 1995, with hardly any conditions
attached, IMF advanced Russia a $6.7 billion loan through its Systematic Transformation
Facility. Practically the entire $6.7 billion sum was used to finance Yeltsin's military
assault on Chechnya.
[6] That operation was a disaster but domestically it served the purpose of distracting the
public attention from economic problems and political corruption. IMF's very next loan to
Russia was a thinly veiled mission to rescue Yeltsin and his government from Russia's
democracy. Namely the Chechen misadventure cost Yeltsin dearly in the December 1995
parliamentary elections and his party suffered a devastating defeat to the Communists.
The president himself had become deeply unpopular. With his approval ratings languishing
between 4% and 6%,
[7] Yeltsin was in real danger of losing the June 1996 presidential elections, which again
risked reversing Russia's transition and nullifying the privatization of its economy.
To avert this, Yeltsin's cabinet hired a team of American political strategists with ties to
the Clinton administration to advise his election campaign. As the Americans got to work in
March of 1996, one of the first things they realized was that the Russian people were furious
about the government's failure to pay state salaries and pensions for months on end. Washington
got the signal and the IMF took action: it promptly released a $1 billion tranche of its next,
$10.2 billion loan so that Yeltsin could pay all the salaries and pensions his government owed.
The loan served the purpose of improving Yeltsin's unpopularity and making the rigged election
appear a bit less suspect.
IMF approved its largest, $22.6 billion loan to Russia as late as 20thJuly 1998 as its
bankrupt government slid inexorably toward default. The loan served two key purposes: large
part of it was a gift to the oligarchs who helped themselves to the funds to convert their
hoard of rubles into USD.
Within four weeks they bought $6.5 billion and transferred most of it to foreign banks.
[8] Most of the rest of IMF loan was a stealth bailout for western financial institutions
which had some $200 billion worth of loans and investments in Russia. The banks feared the
prospect of Russian default which would leave them with crippling losses. These risks became
even more acute in the aftermath of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis that would engulf
Russia in 1998.
In a testimony before the U.S. Congress, veteran investor Jim Rogers characterized IMF's
assistance to Russia as follows: " The activities of the organization are gussied up in
sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world.
Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P.
Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ."
[9]
In addition to loading Russia up with unproductive debt, IMF also engineered Russia's
hyperinflation and liquidity crisis. After eliminating price controls, IMF obliged Russia to
maintain the ruble as the common currency for all Soviet Union successor states, giving each of
the 15 new countries the incentive to issue ruble credits for their own benefit while fueling
inflation for all others. Sachs reported that he strenuously argued with the IMF against this
measure but " for inexplicable reasons, " he was consistently rebuked.
The result was a one-year delay in the introduction of national currencies for the former
Soviet republics, pushing Russia into hyperinflation and needlessly prolonging its economic
depression. At this same time, the IMF engineered Russia's staggering liquidity crisis that
made it almost impossible for enterprises to pay their suppliers and workers. Under IMF's
dictate, Russian economy struggled along on less than one sixth of the currency required to
operate an economy of its size.
The extent of IMF's iron-fisted control over Russian economy was exemplified in a letter
from the IMF's representative Yusuke Horaguchi to Russia's central bank chairman Sergei Dubinin
. The letter specified the precise schedule of Russia's ruble supply along with " harshly
worded " instructions regarding bank credits, the state budget, energy policy, price
levels, trade tariffs and agricultural policies. Horaguchi's letter even included a warning
that any acts of the parliament contravening the IMF mandates would be vetoed by president
Yeltsin.
[10]
It is clear that shock "therapy" was little more than a relentless, cruel strangulation of
Russia's economy to facilitate looting of her vast industrial and resource wealth .
Nonetheless, most Western-published analyses of this episode tended to treat it as failure of
good intentions. While lamenting the outcomes and certain questionable practices, most analysts
essentially attribute the failure of Russian transition to honest errors, Russia's endemic
corruption, and perhaps inexperience in many of the drama's protagonists.
In New York Review of Books, Robert Cotrell provides a typical example: " One cannot
really fault the youthful democratic movements for this failure. They were amateurs and
innocents with a hazy grasp at best of what they wanted to achieve and no grasp at all of how
concretely to achieve it. "
[11] Goldman Marshall of Harvard and the Council of Foreign Relations wrote: " To be
sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers
explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation.
"
Naturally, Marshall fails to detail how or where he polled these "most observers," but his
message to the readers is unmistakable: move along folks, there's nothing to see here –
especially pay no attention to the fact that many of those thousands of Westerners who came to
Russia " for the best of reasons ," including Bill Browder , Andrei Schleifer and
Jonathan Hay ,
[12] returned from Russia as multi-millionaires. Financial reporter Anne Willamson , who
covered Russia for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal rightly remarked in her
Congressional testimony that, " Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken
land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what
they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. "
McFaul lies. and that raises question about his connections to intelligence agencies as
well.
In no way a regular businessman would lobby for Magnitsky act, using false evidence and
blatant lies (for example that Magnitsky was a lawyer; Browder admitted that this is a lie in his
court deposition. This was yet another false flag operation with fingerprints of MI6
It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems. I used to listen to Thom
Hartmann and Rachel Maddow when they were on Air America, and their main political positions
were for working people. Now, all they do is partisan politics which they don't seem to
understand benefits only the Deep State war party.
Incidentally, State of the Nation website, http://www.sott.net , has an article by Alex Krainer, who wrote
the book about Bill Browder's crooked dealings in Russia. His book, which was suppressed by
Browder first, i think is "Grand Deception", now available from Red Pill Press for $25 (and
must be selling well because it's being reprinted). I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on
sott.net. Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding.
Also, there is a video on Youtube, "The Rise of Putin and the Fall of the Russian Jewish
Oligarchs", 2 parts. I only saw the beginning showing how the Russian people were given state
vouchers that led to the oligarchs buying them up for their own profit and plunging Russians
into shock therapy disaster instigated by IMF and other US led monetary agencies including
Harvard. This is why it is so incredible how Americans receive political "perception control"
when the truth is exactly opposite of what they are being told. At least more people are
realizing the lies being told about Russia and Putin.
BROWDER MOVIE. A Russian documentary maker believed everything Browder said and started a
film to justify him. As it progressed, he discovered anomalies and came to realise the story
was false.
See here . It is moving around the Net now and it's worth looking for because Browder's
story is a primary founding myth of the Putin hysteria. The film is fatal to Browder's
story.
Much has been made, including in this post, of the excellent organization of Russian
forces and Russian military technology.
I have been re-investigating an open-source relational database system known as PosgreSQL
(variously), and I remember finding perhaps a decade ago a very useful whole text search
feature of this system which I vaguely remember was written by a Russian and, for that
reason, mildly distrusted by me.
Come to find out that the principle developers and maintainers of PostgreSQL are Russian.
OMG. Double OMG, because the reason I chose it in the first place is that it is the best
non-proprietary RDBS out there and today is supported on Google Cloud, AWS, etc.
The US has met an equal or conceivably a superior, case closed. Trump's thoroughly odd
behavior with Putin is just one but a very obvious one example of this. Of course, Trump's
nationalistic blather is creating a "base" of people who believe in the godliness of the US.
They are in for a very serious disappointment.
After the iron curtain fell, there was a big demand for Russian-trained programmers because
they could program in a very efficient and "light" manner that didn't demand too much of the
hardware, if I remember correctly. It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though. Russia,
throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so their
programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their
technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another.
Russia has plenty of very skilled, very well-trained folks and their science and math
education is, in a way, more fundamentally and soundly grounded on the foundational stuff
than US (based on my personal interactions anyways). Russian tech ppl should always be viewed
with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything.
Well said. Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s
involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual
computer. It gave the students an understanding of how computers works down to the bit
flipping level. Imagine trying to fuzz code in your head.
I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. I used
to do hex and octal math in my head as part of debugging core dumps. Ah, the glory days.
Honeywell once made a military computer that was 10 bit. That stumped me for a while, as
everything was 8 or 16 bit back then.
That used to be fairly common in the civilian sector (in US) too: computing time was
expensive, so you had to make sure that the stuff worked flawlessly before it was committed.
No opportunity to seeing things go wrong and do things over like much of how things happen
nowadays. Russians, with their hardware limitations/shortages, I imagine must have been much
more thorough than US programmers were back in the old days, and you could only get there by
being very thoroughly grounded n the basics.
"... We should not be shy, we should offer tough resistance. Resistance not even to such statements but rather the danger of our country being split up that arises after them ..."
" We should not be shy, we should offer tough resistance. Resistance not even to such
statements but rather the danger of our country being split up that arises after them ,"
said Kalashnikov. The Russian lawmaker also noted that the call to split up Russia clearly
contradicted earlier assurances from Western nations that they have no intention of capturing
Russian territory and breaking it into parts. He went on to say that it's important for Russia
to counter NATO's aggressive plans and not simply trust assurances from aggressive nations.
According to Russian Defense Ministry reports, the first half of 2018 saw NATO conduct 13
large-scale military exercises – involving more than 40,000 servicemen and 2000 units of
combat hardware – near the bloc's south-western borders. Russia maintained the same
military strength on the " contact line " with NATO, but had to increase their combat
ability through more intensive training and the introduction of new, more effective
weapons.
Last week Russian defense chief Sergey Shoigu told an assembly of senior generals and
officers that NATO countries have never stopped carrying out actions aimed at preventing Russia
from becoming an independent player in international politics and geopolitical competitors to
the nations of the Western military bloc. He also accused NATO of using all spheres of human
activity such as politics, economics and even culture and sports to impose its anti-Russian
agenda on as many people as possible.
"... So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook. ..."
Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick
move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war
propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454
) but in CIA crimes against humanity -- specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly illegal
acts."
David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point,
then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain
Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow
Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.
Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we
have common interests in Syria."
Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a
knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the
crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture.
The US was five years late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a
mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights.
So Kramer had to think fast and make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape,
death by dryboard suffocation, and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest
bulb, but that's not a hard job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was
say, "The US does not Torture," robotically over and over.
So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital
interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the
hook.
"... "a calculated attempt to harm our campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," ..."
"... "This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain," ..."
"... I believe Magnitsky died ..."
"... Questions remain, but the fact that he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a 'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. ..."
"... "The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," ..."
"... "I saw facts that do not add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," ..."
"... "There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," ..."
"... "it is not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia." ..."
"... "I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism," ..."
"... "You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," ..."
"... "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live with that." ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation to Browder and his friends," ..."
"... "It goes against your ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case it was different." ..."
Despite
threats of a libel lawsuit, a documentary about the Magnitsky case by a prominent critic of the
Russian government has been shown in Washington. The film rejects the narrative about the case
accepted in the West, on which the US Magnitsky Act is based. The film, titled 'The Magnitsky
Act – Behind the Scenes', was presented to the public for the first time on Monday at the
Newseum, a private museum dedicated to the news industry and freedom of speech in Washington,
DC. The two-hour production is part documentary, part dramatization of the events that surround
the death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky six years ago. Read more After Magnitsky: Dead
lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Magnitsky worked as an accountant for US-British investor William F. Browder, who made
millions in Russia during the 1990s, but was later accused of tax evasion and fled the country.
The lawyer was detained by the Russian police as part of a separate fraud investigation and
died in police custody in November 2009.
Browder claimed that Magnitsky had been investigating corrupt police officers and was thrown
into jail and murdered by them. He declared a crusade against what he called endemic corruption
in the Russian government and lobbied across Europe and the US for punishment of the
individuals whom he accused of involvement in Magnitsky's death.
In 2012 the US passed an act named after the Russian lawyer, which imposed sanctions against
40 Russian citizens – a move that Moscow saw as blatantly anti-Russian, and apparently
retaliated against by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by US citizens.
'Story of
coming together with lie, selfishness & cynicism'
Director Andrei Nekrasov struggled for months to have his controversial work shown to the
public. Scheduled screenings in three European venues, including the European Parliament, were
canceled because Browder threatened multimillion-dollar libel lawsuits against producers or
would-be broadcasters of the film.
Browder opposes the film because he believes it to be "a calculated attempt to harm our
campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," as he told
euobserver.com back in April.
Newseum was threatened in the same way, but rejected the pressure, saying that publishing
Nekrasov's film was an issue of freedom of speech.
"This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain,"
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who moderated the event, told the audience before the
screening.
Nekrasov says he wanted to make a docudrama film about Magnitsky ever since he heard of his
story. He received funding for the project from eight European film foundations and state
broadcasters and got in touch with Browder as part of his work.
But he found inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Browder's campaign to back his
story, saying most of it was circumstantial at best. When he confronted the businessman about
them, he said Browder broke off all contact and started to oppose the film.
The director believes that the narrative of Magnitsky as the brave whistleblower killed by
corrupt Russian cops, as it was accepted in the West, is a scam by Browder, who capitalized on
the lawyer's death to shield himself from all past and future accusations from Russian law
enforcement, which he could claim to be politically motivated.
" I believe Magnitsky died ," Nekrasov told journalists in response to a question
on whether he believed the lawyer was killed or died. " Questions remain, but the fact that
he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a
'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. "
"The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," Nekrasov told journalists as he
commented on revelations he made during the making of his film. "I saw facts that do not
add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," he added.
Documents show that the evidence presented by Browder as proof that Magnitsky was a
whistleblower was in fact a transcript of Magnitsky's interrogations, which were conducted
before he made his statements, Nekrasov claimed, stressing that police officers had no motive
for killing Magnitsky as he did not expose them.
"There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," the film
director told journalists.
"I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this
particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky
resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," Nekrasov said, adding that "it is
not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia."
"I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story
of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism,"
Nekrasov told RT in May, when the screening of the film was cancelled at the last moment in
Brussels.
The director's view didn't go well with some of the first viewers of the film, including
Russian opposition politicians and rights activists.
"You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," exclaimed Ilya Yashin, a
veteran opposition figure in Russia. "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live
with that."
The outcry was perhaps to be expected. Nekrasov himself has been a critic of the Russian
government for years. Some of his earlier works explored alleged involvement of the Kremlin in
very serious issues, including the Chechnya war, the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko, corruption
in security agencies and others.
His documentaries, both political and otherwise, were praised by critics and won a number of
awards, including the prestigious German Grimme-Preis award. Georgia named him person of the
year 2009 for a film about the 2008 war against Russia.
"I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation
to Browder and his friends," Nekrasov said of his latest film. "It goes against your
ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the
Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case
it was different."Where to
watchSchedule Subscribe to RT
newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won't tell you
I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him
as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the
U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was
the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill
against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and
individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.
At the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President
Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving
potential criminal cases involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators
from Washington and Moscow to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in
indictments prepared by the respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American
nomenklatura was that it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to
answer questions from Russians about their activities.
Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the
twelve recently indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in
order for Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities
for illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American
officials.
"... Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's 2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr. and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Those notes, apparently taken on Manafort's phone , are as follows. ..."
"... Offshore -- Cyprus ..."
"... Not invest -- loan ..."
"... Value in Cyprus as inter ..."
"... Active sponsors of RNC ..."
"... Browder hired Joanna Glover ..."
"... Tied into Cheney ..."
"... Russian adoption by American families ..."
"... In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice president Richard B. Cheney. ..."
Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a
one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's
2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr.
and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised
incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.
In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly
seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice
president Richard B. Cheney.
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please
click here ]
"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can
lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark
places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is."
― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"
In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge
fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the
past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his
presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised
me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir
Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This
time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent
read.
Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays
Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless
tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the
struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful
network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice.
It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.
I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days
after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a
number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about
it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of
William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I
finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.
My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this,
I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of
the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from
Communism to Capitalism and what
17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section
discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes
him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and
Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S.
Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the
Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.
As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first
few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star
review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder
team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression
comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.
On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of
the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled
"Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but
Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing
company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its
Kindle store.
CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory
content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr.
Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and
remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace
had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues."
In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether
it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer
offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to
write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no
response.
This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has
effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016,
Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind
the Scenes."
Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were
critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed
Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his
research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached
out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months.
Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get
clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the
cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed
until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading
Russian propaganda.
When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings.
With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of
the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even
managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of
Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of
Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of
expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to
be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.
No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be
sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.
Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of
different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open
debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at
constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into
consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to
silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed
debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing
elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful
defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a
bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at
evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all.
Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we
are allowed to know and what we are not.
In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his
battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and
most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.
This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation
that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack
Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story,
begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate
responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story
collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud
who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical
condition.
The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker
of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the
"trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his
project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation
to get at the truth .
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his
documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC
News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding
Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch
liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from
Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful
fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.
Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's
totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time
nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high
value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach,
the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must
admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have
refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP
China, or the Soviet Union.
Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be
exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability
– as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters
getting in the way of the state's own agenda).
There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he
denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's
death?
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm
Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination
would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI
would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit,
when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to
pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.
I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm
afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a
household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood
movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.
As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on
the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY
convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the
prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much
larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when
Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he
returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.
Parry's article
mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the
Norwegian production company.
This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking
for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given
a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get
this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal
would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and
usually happen later.
However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including
ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with
litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.
In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available,
unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that
claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same
Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.
I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film,
as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the
original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means
somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This
means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase
awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.
Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the
resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for
somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it
via a torrent.
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters)
in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
The story Browder refuses to tell is far more interesting than the one he wrote for the
book.
I found the book quite easy to put down: I got tired of all the chapters about how he made
so much money following the fall of the Soviet Union. But Norman Pearlstine's statement that
"Browder's business saga meshes well with the story of corruption and murder in Vladimir
Putin's Russia" is more true than he realizes. With the release of Glenn Simpson's 20 hours
of testimony before three Senate committees we now know that there is a great deal of
information Browder failed to disclose. I'll let Simpson tell it:
He was willing to, you know, hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and
cause them to launch a court case against somebody, but he wasn't interesting in speaking
under oath about, you know, why he did that ... All of this -- his determined effort to avoid
testifying under oath, including running away from subpoenas and changing -- frequently
changing lawyers and making lurid allegations against us, including that, you know, he
thought we were KGB assassins in the parking lot of Aspen, Colorado when we served the
subpoena, all raised questions
in my mind about why he was so determined to not have to answer questions under oath about
things that happened in Russia.
I'll add that, you know, I've done a lot of Russia reporting over the years. I originally
met William Browder back when I was a journalist at the Wall Street Journal when I was doing
stories about corruption in Russia. I think the first time I met him he lectured me about --
I was working on a story about Vladimir Putin corruption and he lectured me about how have
Vladimir Putin was not corrupt and how he was the best thing that ever
happened to Russia.
But returning to the detailed discussion of my work, we investigated William Browder's
business practices in Russia, we began to understand maybe what it was he didn't want to talk
about, and as we looked at that we then began to look at his decision to surrender his
American citizenship in 1998. At that point somewhere in there the Panama papers came out and
we discovered that he had incorporated shell companies offshore in the mid 1990s, in 1995 I
believe it was in the British Virgin Islands, and that at some point his hedge fund's shares
had been transferred to this offshore company. This offshore company was managed -- several
of his offshore companies were managed by the Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca,
which is known now for setting up offshore companies for drug kingpins, narcos, kleptos, you
name it. They were servicing every bad guy around. And I'm familiar with them from other
money laundering and corruption and tax evasion investigations that I've done.I'll note
parenthetically that William Browder talks a lot about the Panama papers and the Russians who
are in the Panama papers without ever mentioning that he's in the Panama papers.
Now, I choose to believe Simpson, who not only chose to submit to 20 hours of Senate
committee but then demand that it be made public, and not Browder, who fled from Simpson in
the parking lot of an Aspen resort, later claiming he thought Simpson was KBG.
This is not a book to be set aside lightly... in the words of Dorothy Parker. It has been
many years since I have read a book this bad. And many more since I finished one this bad. In
recent years I have been more able to simply give up on bad books, ignoring the sunk cost
fallacy that previously drove me to soldier on - perhaps it's an increasing awareness of the
value of time, but nowadays I will bail out when it is clear I've made a big mistake. But
this one was recommended by a friend whose taste I had no reason to doubt so I kept on,
chapter after gruelling chapter, hoping for some epiphany or quality uptick. Let me save you
from the same mistake.
One service this book does render, though, is to remind you, if you need it, that writing
is hard. You may be the world's most fabulous person (well, second most fabulous - the author
of this book is pretty clear about who occupies the top spot) but it don't make you a good
writer, see. So the first important thing to know is that Bill Browder cannot write. He
strings together cliches, name drops, humble brags (and regular brags too) but he can't
write. No matter; perhaps the content can make up for it? I'm sure there are plenty of books
where the content redeems the awful style, such as... well, I'm sure there are plenty. But
the second thing to know going in is that the story is a pretty tedious, linear tale of BB's
triumphs in the world of finance and then, as he calls it, "human rights". The problem, I
think, is that the tone of the book is very smug and, despite the occasional and obviously
cynical self-deprecation, deeply self-satisfied. The author has a real tin ear for his tone,
I think, and it's well illustrated by a very early part of the story. He arrives in Poland in
his first job, charged with the assessment and, hopefully, revival of a failing bus company.
He expresses his deep sorrow and pity for the poor, poor workers and wonders what he can do
to help. Meanwhile, he comes across a class of stocks in Poland that seem to him to be
ridiculously underpriced. Aha! thinks the naive reader - I know where this is going: he will
get the bus company to invest in these stocks ad save the day. But no! It turns out that
these narratives shall not meet: he buys the stocks himself and makes out like a bandit, and
he recommends that the bus company be shut down, throwing all the workers on the street. He
is very, very sorry about the latter, of course, but, on the other hand, he has discovered
his true calling as a value investor! Gaudeamus!
The author seems to have absolutely no appreciation of his role as a functionary in a very
particular social system and it makes all of his carefully laid out social conscience ring
hollow and renders his thoroughly documented tears crocodilian.
Both sides of this story are doing horrible things and the writer thinks what he did was
correct!
This is a story where the writer only criticizes the horrible things the russian goverment
did to him and how some oligarchs steal tax money (as everywhere but blatantly) but fails to
realize that what he did, purchasing people-owned companies at fractions of a penny on the
dollar and knowing it, while taking advantage of the imperfect systems put in place for the
distribution of those companies' wealth to the people of that country, as he perfectly
describes in this book, is also wrong in the first place. He fails to understand he actually
hurt the people of that country when he bought shares at a "steal" price as he writes, he
thinks he is doing the right thing because of his wall street mentality, no rules, prey on
whomever gives an opportunity. Sad, but it's the world we live in today
Browder's story seems like a complete scam. First, he personally profited to the tune of
$2 BN off the backs of the Russian people, taking advantage of inequities in the voucher
system used with the dissolution of the USSR. He never mentions how much he personally made,
as that would have cast too much reality on the sheer vanity, self-aggrandizement, and
sanctimonious rubbish that is the rest of the story. More pointedly, he does not speak to how
his money provided access to the highest levels of government, John McCain, and greased the
wheels of the European legal system. Take for example, his ability to miraculously get two
Interpol Red Notices removed within days of their placement. The Magnitsky case was terrible
but he clearly uses it as a sanctimonious shield to get public sympathy and protection. I
could go on but the bottom line is do not waste your time or money. Browder is one of the bad
guys- at best a delusional narcissist, or more likely a greedy scam artist, pulling the wool
over everyone's eyes.
After finishing Masha Gessen's "Man Without a Face" (insightful) Karen Dawisha's "Putin's
Kleptocracy" (a mind-boggling, devastating indictment of Putin and his cronies), and David
Hoffman's "Billion Dollar Spy" (reads like a thriller novel), I was hoping that Bill
Browder's book would provide some additional depth and an interesting perspective on the
thoroughly corrupt workings of post-Soviet Russia. It does not.
Like Browder, I went to Russia numerous times -- but didn't have an office there as he did
-- during the 90s and did a number of deals there. Unlike Browder, I speak the language and
know Russian business and legal culture quite well. (I'm an average American, born and raised
in Ohio, where I still live, but I do have a Russian wife, whom I met on one of my trips
there in the 1990s.)
Browder is an extremely unsympathetic figure: Although he doesn't admit to it in the book,
he was blinded by greed and arrogance to the point where he viewed his marriage and his son
as of only trivial importance compared to his mission in life to get rich. He went to Russia
to get something for nothing, thinking he was being shrewd. His utter ignorance of Russian
business and Russian culture permeate the book -- his condescending attitude is similar to
that of a British governor-general back in 1940s Iran, when the British role was limited to
exploiting Iran by grabbing its oil for a pittance while speaking contemptuously of the
locals. Browder contemptuously describes Russian attempts to reign him in: "Russians will
gladly -- gleefully even -- sacrifice their own success to screw their neighbor." Yet he is
oblivious to the fact that he himself, without any second thoughts, sacrificed his own family
for the prospect of making just one more deal, just one more deal, and then just one more
deal. American citizenship too was just another expendable in his all-consuming quest for
riches.
Russia in the 1990s was a sea of corruption, intrigue, mafia protection rackets, turf
battles, economic chaos, incompetence, and power grabs. Browder injected himself into it,
completely ignorant of what he was getting into, determined to take advantage. He got
burned.
"Red Notice" doesn't provide any perspective or depth; it isn't even particularly
interesting. Browder's narcisssm and self-justifications permate the book, making it
extremely unpleasant to read.
The author is, inter alia, wanted in Russia for tax fraud and so, obviously, will say
everything he can that is negative about Russia. His background and backers are also very
suspicious, to my mind anyway.
I found the book to be nothing but hype. This was confirmed when I read Alex Krainer's
"The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." This
excellent book - with factual content and well referenced - tears Browder to shreds. As he
deserves to be.
But the sheeple will continue to want to believe this fiction - it suits the current
american meme.
I recommend to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ...
The ' truth ' and the brainwashed herd of the sheeple. The death of the
Anglo-American-Zionist Empire. For those who think for themselves and cares for the others,
here in the USA ( former United States of America, now United Slaves of America ) and
all-over the World, for those of you in the research of ' whatreallyhappened ', I recommend
to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ) and read...R E A D INDEPENDENT
books and watch INDEPENDENT documentaries ! Books like ' The Killing of William Browder:
Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deceptions ' - NOT for sale on 'amazon.com' - WHY
???!!!...Documentaries like ' The Magnitsky act: Behind the Scenes ', produced by filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov ( a fierce critic of President Putin ).
Crook got his chances in Russia ----- HE IS A LIER!!!!
Complete Rubbish! Not only he concealed a lot of facts - he fabricated a lot of them. The
book is complete fiction, Why he doesnt mention that Magnitsky helped Hermitage create
schemes to avoid taxes, crate shell-companies to buy stocks of Gazprom (foreigners can not
buy Gazprom stocks), created shell companies in Cyprus and Kalmikia to pay joke taxes, hired
disabled people to again lower taxes? etc He is a joke
Mr. Browder went to Russian in the early 90s to make quick cash - he did it by buying
stocks from uneducated russians (similar to other russian oligarchs). Story of another greedy
individual who wanted to become a billionaire fast - once he had to pay the price he become
outraged by injustice of the system... XOXOXOXOXOX next time when you, Mr Browder, go to
another developing country with the intention to rob the system be prepared to take the
responsibility and do not whine about it like a little girl. A crook got upset that he didnt
make as much money as he wanted and got kicked out from the country - what a joke.
BTW - the youtube video with Mr. Browder running away from the officer who served him
subpoena is hilarious. If Mr Browder is so ethical and clean why he doesn't want to testify
in court?
This book came highly recommended to me by someone in the hedge fund industry. I was
surprised at how bad it was. I was looking into insight as to how Bill Browder, who once ran
the largest Russian hedge fund, made his fortune, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions
of dollars. Instead the book was a very self serving book which I would identify as 20% self
aggrandizement, self serving, 20% discussion of the arbitrage trades that made him rich, 60%
discussion of the Sergie Magnitsky Act which he worked to pass. The book is full of
contradictions including Browder's moral position and his self righteousness. It makes you
wonder if anyone thought about this book in context of the 2008 financial markets collapse or
did any research on Browder when reading it. Also, why does Browder today actively evade
subpoenas to testify about what happened in American court as shown in Youtube videos?
The book is full of villains on both sides. Browder is the grandson of the former head of
the US communist party. He gave up his US citizenship to become a British citizen in 1997. He
worked for the criminal Robert Maxwell who had misappropriated corporate pension funds to
live a flamboyant lifestyle, then he went to work with Edmond Safra as a partner in Hermitage
Capital. Not only these global speculators but the book includes Mossad and a host of Russian
oligarchs (all financed by Fred Goodwin's Royal Bank of Scotland). Browder's arbitrage was
that Russian companies were severely undervalued because no other investors trusted Russian
corporations and Russian rule of law. Whereas most other investors thought Russian companies
were 100% un-investable, Browder figured many of them were only 50% un-investable and he
invested in that 50% that was investable. After that arbitrage went away, he decided to start
investigating Russian corporations for inside dealing and his activist strategy paid off but
made many enemies. He was warned by numerous other investors that his life and others would
be in danger for this. Everyone he works with leaves wreckage behind until he does the same.
When one of his lawyers who gets less than 1% of coverage in the first half of the book dies
in a Russian prison, he goes all out to try to get revenge on the Russians who he claims made
tax fraud on the Russian government and him by seizing control of companies he owned. Many
questions arise from the book some of which I list below.
(1) Browder's hedge fund is domiciled in Guernsey and Cayman Islands, notorious tax
evasion locales, yet the premise of the second half of the book is to get revenge on corrupt
Russian officials for stealing Russian tax money (his hundreds of millions of dollars)
(2) Browder is drawn to evil people and shady characters (Maxwell, oligarch companies,
mossad, etc) like moths to a flame. Is it force of habit for him to fall into bad situations
with them? Is it the US government's role to spend taxpayer money on exacting revenge for him
on the crooked crowd he deals with? His friends are spoken with in great superlatives, his
enemies despised. It is easy to imagine if you were a friend and became an enemy he would
label you with epithets thus immediately.
(3) Browder becomes a British citizen (but a hedge fund deci or centi millionaire) yet he
easily gets access to John McCain, Joe Lieberman and other US elected officials to get the
Magnitsky act passed. Ultimately the Magnitsky act passes and Russia responds by banning all
US adoptions of Russian children. For all you childless women looking to adopt Russian
babies, thank the egotist Browder for your inability to do so going forward. Were you screwed
in the 2008 financial markets collapse? The system may not work for you but it works for a
global speculator who wants vengeance.
(4) But its worse. Browder goes to war with the Oligarchs who were funded by Royal Bank of
Scotland and who defaulted on their loans from RBS. The UK citizens had to bail out RBS.
Browder tries to utilize the British government to exact vengeance on the very same Oligarchs
the British government is bailing out in some ways.
(5) Browder is the great example of the speculative hedge fund trader of the 90's and 00's
run amok. He is a speculator, he was warned about the risks, he jumps headlong into them and
knows Russia does not have American or British rule of law. But he expects the US and Britain
to jump to his aid for his recklessness and bail him out like the other crooks of the 2008
vintage. EVEN THOUGH HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN.
(6) Lookup the Wall Street Journal articles or Youtube videos about how the cowardly Browder
runs away from being served by a subpoena and has constantly sought to avoid subpoena's from
the Russians who are countersuing him in US and British court. If he is for rule of law, why
not work his way through the legal systems. Seems like there is another side to the
story.
Hey, guys and gals, the man is a shark. An investment banker. He'd sell his own
grandmother if he thought he's make a profit. And now he's trying to profit by selling his
own story, all teary-eyed about his lawyer and his quest for "justice." Barf. He wants to
expose Kremlin corruption, happily forgetting Wall St. corruption that he hoped would make
HIM millions. He only saw the light when other folks made millions and he got arrested. Kinda
like any low-life Baltimore drug pusher. Please don't buy his line of crack cocaine.
This is a thrilling page-turner of financial and political intrigue. The problem is that
it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Just about everything of which Browder
accuses the Russian kleptocrats is equaled or excelled by the US robber barons and the
agencies of violence wielded by the US government. Browder also digresses from time to time
into the history of the USSR about which he knows nothing except the propaganda that we have
been fed, most of which originates, ironically enough, from the very oligarchs he so
justifiably criticizes.
Very interesting to hear an insider's experience of Russia privatization and the politics
of the 90's and early 2000s. I enjoyed that part.
That said, I found Browder spent a lot of time tooting his own horn and virtue signaling . He
seemed quite impressed with himself and spends much of the book detailing why you should be
too.
I never thought Putin was a good guy.
I never thought neocon/ deep state John McCain was a good guy. ( Browder does).
I don't think Browder made his gazillions by being a good guy. A lot of ordinary Russians got
ripped off . Browder and a lot of others got rich.
This is a fairly interesting, if pretty unsurprising, story of high-level graft and
corruption in Russia. Yes, Putin and the Russian government are rife with corruption, and the
rules are subject to change on a whim. That should be obvious to anyone who paid any
attention to Russia's preparation for the Sochi Olympics. I'm even inclined to take Browder's
story about the torture and eventual death of Sergei Magnitsky (who he describes as a tax
lawyer, but was actually an accountant) at face value.
But where Browder really grates is with his remarkable lack of self-awareness and
out-of-touch declarations. At one point, for instance, in the run-up to the 1996 elections,
in which there was a chance that the Communist candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, would win the
presidency and potentially re-nationalize state companies, Browder said that he could deal
with food shortages, hyperinflation, or any number of terrible conditions, but what he
couldn't stomach was re-nationalization of industry. So, according to this guy, people
starving and their savings evaporating into thin air is tolerable, but the worst thing
imaginable is him losing his gains from fleecing Russian peasants. Solid guy, Browder.
For some background-- when the USSR fell, Russia embarked on a program of "voucher
privatization" where every citizen received vouchers that they could use to bid on the shares
of previously state-owned enterprises. Since Russia has incredible resource wealth, these
were quite valuable. Unfortunately, in a country with no history of any kind of capital
markets, the overwhelming majority of people had no clue what use they could get out of stock
ownership. Immediately after they were issued, you could buy a voucher for a bottle of cheap
vodka. And the people who became the oligarchs, as well as western vultures like Browder, did
just that. Eventually, these shares sold at incredibly low valuations, and investors made a
killing. But what Browder doesn't mention is that these absurdly low valuations almost
certainly came about, in large part, from the fact that investors hate uncertainty. The
possibility that a Zyuganov would come to power and re-nationalize state-owned enterprises
was a real possibility, so plenty of investors stayed on the sidelines. Not Browder-- he
jumped in, and when (surprise!) the Russian government behaved like the Russian government is
wont to do, he acted like he was the victim of the world's worst injustice. Sure, what
happened was in some way unfair. So was all the vultures jumping in to take advantage of
peasants. Browder had no problem ripping off Russian peasants while extolling himself as a
"great capitalist," but, when the Russian government took him in, he complained about the big
bad Russians. It was extremely tiresome.
There were other places where his tone was equally annoying. He spent time talking about
how "sexy" his second wife was/is, how she's "not like those other Russian girls that are
just after money," and how many other people wanted to date her and how awesome he was
because she chose him. Sergei Magnitsky's death is a sad story from a sad place. It's too bad
the person to tell it is such a wildly out of touch hypocrite.
The book was fun to read, like a Marvel comic book. Truly Bill Browder is, according to
Bill Browder, a brilliant man willing to take daring risks where he sees an opportunity for
personal gain. And I have to agree with him. With his inherited genetic intelligence, and
some of the best education money can buy, he made himself enormously rich profiting from
financial transactions that produced nothing of real value. I found this book to be quite
self-congratulatory, written with no embarrassment for taking advantage of a whole
population.
As Browder writes, "I found that to transition from communism to capitalism, the Russian
government had decided to give away most of the state's property to the people. The
government was going about this in a number of ways, but the most interesting was something
called voucher privatization. The government granted one privatization certificate to every
Russian citizen---roughly 150 million people in total -- and taken together these were
exchangeable for 30 % of nearly all Russian companies." "The market price of the vouchers
equaled 3 billion this meant that the valuation of the entire Russian economy was only 10
billion! That was one-sixth the value of Wal-Mart!" "Russia had 24% of the word's natural
gas, 9% of the world's oil, and produced 6.6 % of the world's steel, among many other things.
Yet this incredible trove of resources [owned by ordinary Russian citizens] was trading for a
mere 10 billion! Even more astonishing was that there were no restrictions on who could
purchase these vouchers. I could buy them, anyone could buy them." He recounts, "The Russian
people had no idea what to do with the vouchers when they received them for free from the
state and, in most cases, were happy to trade them for a $7 bottle of vodka or a few slabs of
pork." Mr. Browder took advantage of their ignorance and brought millions of vouchers from
the Russian people for a pittance of their true value. This is something to brag about? It is
not laudable to buy something for a pittance of its real worth, from owners who have no idea
of its true value. It is reprehensible. It was disturbing to me to see no introspection on
the rightness or wrongness of beating someone out of his or her money.
Mr. Browder describes in his Sidanco deal the feeling he has when an opportunity for ungodly
gains presents itself, "I had that tingling, greedy tension in my gut, similar to when I saw
my $2,000 Polish investment multiply by nearly ten times, or when I unearthed the Russian
voucher scheme."
Greed is not a virtue, Mr. Browder. It is a vice.
Reviewer Ian Kaplan wrote:
The second half of the book is about how Putin's gang tried to crush Hermitage Capital and
everyone associated with it."
And, I would add, how Browder's gang is trying to crush Putin.
It makes me think that a large part of Mr. Browder's dogged determination in pushing the
Maginsky Act through Congress, and signed into law, was not so much a humanitarian turn of
the leaf for him, but a strategy to enlist the whole backing of the United States into his
personal war with Putin, who put him out of a lucrative business in Russia.
I was familiar with Hermitage and Browder so it was not "news" to me. I feel Browder makes
himself look good when in reality he was a jerk.
I don't wish him well!
Bill Schaffer
Bill Browder is a shrewd fellow, at least up to a point. He saw an opportunity to make
money after the collapse of Communism in Russia. He moved to Moscow, started a hedge fund,
and succeeded in a big way. He made piles of money in essentially the same way the Russian
oligarchy made it, by purchasing formerly state owned assets at hugely discounted rates.
It all worked beautifully for a while, but clever as he was Browder didn't realize he was
living in a fool's paradise. Rather than remaining cool and quiet while making money, he
publicly accused certain local enterprises of corruption. He did this, rather naively, in a
country notoriously resentful of foreign interference in its affairs. Furthermore, there are
indications that he himself was not above involvement in dodgy dealings, including fudging on
taxes and sneaking funds into tax havens.
Not surprisingly, Browder, away on a trip, was barred from reentering Russia. Authorities
raided his Moscow offices, confiscating files and computers. Although Browder managed to get
his staff out of Russia, a man named Sergei Magnitsky whom Browder calls his lawyer, though
he was apparently only an auditor, chose not to leave. This was a grave error, as poor
Magnitsky became the foil for Russian displeasure with Browder. He was jailed, beaten, denied
medical treatment, and died in prison. Meanwhile, a couple of thugs attached to the KGB,
Russia's secret police, extorted large sums of money from Browder via a complex fraud,
presumably accomplished with the tacit consent of establishment superiors.
Browder used Magnitsky's death to launch a major and eventually successful lobbying
campaign for a U.S. law which came to be known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposing
sanctions on Russian officials responsible for Magnitsky's death. The Russians retaliated by
placing Browder on the Interpol wanted list and later sentencing him in absentia to nine
years in prison for tax fraud.
"Red Notice" is written in the fashionably breezy and colloquial style seemingly favored
by many professional ghost writers. Not surprisingly, it portrays Browder as a skilled and
principled financier who, prompted by the Magnitsky tragedy, turns himself into a towering
figure in the world of human rights.
There are odd omissions in descriptions of Browder's family life. Divorce from his first
wife is mentioned only in passing; although much ado is made over his meeting his glamorous
Russian second wife, she fades entirely from later portions of the manuscript. "Red Notice"
is a work of considerable interest. However, given the many controversies that hover over
Browder's life and reputation, I believe it wise to view its contents with a generous degree
of skepticism.
Other reviewers have accurately summarized the book, and justly praised Browder's
commitment and courage in seeking a measure of justice for the brutal treatment, leading to
death, of Sergei Magnitsky. My comment will focus on a disquieting subtext babout browder's
activities in setting up and running his hedge fund.
Browder's rise to prominence with his Hermitage Fund followed the classic MBA playbook:
find and exploit undervaluation. Fair enough in a financial world of transparency and
disclosure where "consenting adults" can presumably fend for themselves. But this was not
exactly the environment in Russia in the early 1990s. In its attempted transition from
communism to some form of capitalism, the Russian government granted "privatization
certificates" to the people - one certificate per citizen, about 150 million in total.
Browder found that these certificates, in the aggregate, were exchangeable for about a 30
percent interest in newly privatized Russian companies.
In theory, this should have been a promising financial arrangement for the impoverished
Russian people, particularly given the country's wealth of natural resources and the
p[otential of its energy sector. But after decades of communism, capitalism was a largely
unknown concept in day-to-day practice. Controlling interests were diverted to a
well-connected oligarchical minority, who saw the companies more as ATMs rather than what we
in the West would call modern corporations with appropriate disclosure and governance
standards. Companies were valued at a tiny fraction of comparable Western entities, and the
Russian stock market, such as it was, had little volume and virtually no transparency.
Browder had the insight to realize that the participation certificates were ludicrously
undervalued in relation to the potential net worth of Russian companies. By purchasing large
numbers of these certificates from the essentially clueless Russian citizenry for the
functional equivalent of pennies on the dollar in relation to underlying value, Browder was
able to position his Hermitage Fund to get in on the ground floor of a stock market that was
virtually certain to rise dramatically as the potential of the Russian economy came to be
understood in the Western world.
Depending on one's perspective, this is either an instance of brilliant, if amoral,
take-the-world-as-it-is MBA-ism, or a classic example of a city slicker fleecing the rubes in
a manner that would be much more difficult to pull off in a more sophisticated financial
environment. I lean toward the latter position, and surely am not the only one dazed by the
irony of Browder, grandson of a one-time head of the U.S. Communist Party, so
unapologetically exploiting the ignorance of the Russian populace for capitalist gain.
Browder deserves all the kudos he's received for his work on the Magnitsky matter. But his
Hermitage Fund (and its progeny and imitators) helped give visibility (though not
transparency) and liquidity, as well as an aura of respectability, to the previously
"undernourished" Russian stock market. Browder's investors did well, as did numbers of
average Russians (though not necessarily those who sold the participation certificates).
Principal beneficiaries, however, were the oligarchs and the well-connected favored few, the
value of whose controlling interests soared greatly. In part, Browder was an enabler of the
system he came (rightly) to despise and fight against.
It seems Browder is trying to whitewash his own reputation and the part he played in the
disasterous privitazation of Russian businesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He
was an active and avid participant in buying up shares of companies for pennies on the dollar
which helped to impoverish Russians for a generation. In addition his part in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky was shameful. Yes Browder and Magnitsky uncoverd massive fraud but
ultimately Browder decided that the money was more important than his "friend's" life.
Passige of the Magnitsky Law slightly punished the perpetrators but he didn't need to die and
Browder should be ashamed of himself as well.
A must read, regardless of political party of choice. A book that could save America,
literaly
Well written, stringently researched and truly shines a light on the dark dealings of Bill
Browder. Seamlessly disects the chapters of Bill browders book red notice bit by bit.
Everyone should read this book.
Russian
businessman Aleksandr Perepelichny, a key witness in the Sergey Magnitsky case who died in
southern England in November 2012, may have been poisoned, British media reported. Perepelichny
allegedly cooperated with Swiss investigators looking into the death of Sergey Magnitsky and a
$240 million money laundering case, involving Russian officials and organized crime.
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer, who was held in pre-trial detention in connection with tax
fraud, and died in 2009 due to being denied crucial medical treatment by prison officials.
His death caused an international outcry and led to the passing of the so-called Magnitsky
Act by the US Congress in 2012, which punished a group of Russian state officials and law
enforcers with a US asset freeze and a visa ban over alleged human rights violations.
Shortly before testifying in the Magnitsky case, Perepelichny collapsed and died while jogging near
his home near in Surrey, south of London.
The Surrey police initially found nothing suspicious about the 44-year-old man's death,
saying that there was "no third-party involvement."
However, a pre-inquest hearing Monday has shed light on new facts in the case, which
contradicted the initial conclusions by the police.
A top poisons expert examined a sample of Perepilichny's stomach contents last year and
discovered the presence of a chemical strongly associated with a lethal plant toxin, the
Independent newspaper reported.
Professor Monique Simmonds from Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, London, told the court that
the substance was extremely rare in nature and could only be obtained from gelsemium, a
poisonous plant also known as "heartbreak grass."
The plant only grows in remote areas in Russia and China, and became known as a poison used
by assassins in the two countries.
However, it isn't used very often. The most recent known use of gelsemium as a poison was
the assassination of Chinese billionaire Huang Guang in 2011.
Lawyers representing the police at Surrey Coroner's Court in Woking acknowledged that the
presence of the chemical "ion" in Perepilichny's system was a "cause for very
serious concern," the Independent reported.
The new finding prompted the judge to reschedule a hearing in Perepilichny's case, due to
begin Monday, until September as to allow more tests to be performed.
According to the Independent, the Surrey police may find themselves in hot water for
negligence if Perepilichny's poisoning is confirmed, as the case would resemble the
high-profile murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko in London in 2006.
Litvinenko, a former Russian security officer, died in hospital after being poisoned with
radioactive Polonium 210, with his death acting as a stumbling block in relations between
Russia and the UK.
A
documentary screening of Andrei Nekrasov's investigation comes to a halt due to
behind-the-scenes schemes of an American billionaire.
Nekrasov (c) in a scene from his new film (Photo: greens-efa.eu)
Originally appeared at Rusplt , translated by
Mona Lita exclusively for SouthFront
Seems like the world has turned upside down. After decades of living under the conditions of
censorship, Russia has generated an unprecedented desire for freedom. Europe, by contrast, is
increasingly resorting to banning facts that are inconvenient for her. Myths that benefit
politicians of the Old World are claimed as truth, while all the rest is, for example, Russian
"propaganda". On this basis the obstacles to Mass Media activities are being fixed, while
access to individual documentaries is being cut off from the viewer. One of these types of
works is a film "the Magnitsky Act – behind the scenes", made by a Russian director
Andrei Nekrasov, which is dedicated to a famous story about tax evasion, which later becomes
the reason for the adoption of the American law with the same name.
Another screening of Nekrasov's film was to be held today, on May 27th as one of the short
films at a festival in Grimstad, Norway [ SF editor: It wasn't screened]. Whether it will
happen or not is not yet clear. The fact is that the film's authors now have a powerful
opponent, an American billionaire and CEO of Hermitage Capital – William Browder, an
author of the Sergei Magnitsky myth and his self-proclaimed political executor. Unhappy with
Nekrasov's investigation, in which a version of an innocent businessman is being refuted,
Browder launched an opposition campaign. He is not hesitating to use a whole arsenal of tools
for this: direct political pressure, defender assaults and prosecution. A Norwegian publication
Dagbladet writes about this.
According to the publication, for the sake of counteracting the film's circulation Browden
held separate meetings with the Storting parliament members – Ingerd Skou from the
"Høyre" Party and Morten Wold from the Progress Party. Both of them are also members of
the Storting delegation in PACE, and this means they have European-scale influence. Moreover,
Browder met with the leader of the Norwegian Party Venstre, Trine Skei Grande. In respect to
Nekrasov's film the policy is set to be very critical, calling it propaganda. "Everyone knows
that Russia is a master at conducting such campaigns", a publication quotes her words. It turns
out she has not seen the film itself but believes in Browder's version.
In addition to politicians' support, Browder – an American with a British passport,
enlisted the sympathy of human rights activists. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is entirely
on his side. A corresponding meeting took place during the visit of this country's
businessman.
A sacrifice is required for human rights activists to exist. Magnitsky is the suitable
candidate. Death in a Russian prison makes him a desirable target to human rights fanatics. In
case this resource is not enough, Browder prepared a court appeal. "I have hired Norwegian
attorneys. They have been ordered to take up the case", he explained to Dagbladet. Browder
wants to sue not only the film director but also the film festival in Grimstad, if he did not
remove the film from screening.
Right now, the festival organizers are resisting. According to the Executive Director Anita
Svingen, they will refuse the showing of Nekrasov investigation only if the creators themselves
will withdraw the film for legal reasons. Despite Browder's threats to sue the festival, its
organizers invited him to a discussion that will take place after the viewing. They recalled
that it was a Norwegian company that created the film, which guarantees him a sufficient level
of confidence.
It should be noted that funding for Nekrasov's work is also European. The film received
millions of krones from the Nordic Film and TV Fond, the Norwegian Film Institute (NFI), Norsk
Film Institute and the Foundation Fritt Ord ("Free Word"). If those politicians who oppose the
showing are outraged by this circumstance, then the Representative of NFI Mette Taraldsen
reasonably noted that the very "form and task of documentaries is to raise critical questions
and to cover the case from different angles". At the same time he also reminded that Andrei
Nekrasov is one of the most experienced documentarians, and it makes no sense not to trust
him.
Europe is afraid of free speech?
In fact, the Russian director is considered one of the masters in European documentary
films. A partnership with Andrei Tarkovsky, training in Bristol and work on the British
television network allowed him to sustain a professional status. His work has received numerous
awards, including one at the Cannes Film Festival. An important factor in Nekrasov's reputation
is that he is the current Russian president's enemy. Accusations that he "sold out" to the
Kremlin obviously have no ground to stand on. "I used to make films that were quite critical of
Putin, and such allegations hurt me deeply", he said.
When Nekrasov first began shooting the film, he implicitly believed in Browder's version.
After all, all the major Western media consistently wrote and spoke about it with one voice.
The adaptation of the story "about the conspiracy of Russian policemen killing the fighter of
Magnitsky corruption" was assumed. It was only during the process of filming, when the director
was introduced to the documents that he realized he was filming a lie. The version of the story
that Browder circulated has little to do with reality, but rather serves the businessman's
personal interests. This explains the powerful complex program to counter the film's showing
and threats with multi-million dollar lawsuits to anyone involved in its spread. It's just that
Browder's pride was hurt.
The first documents Nekrasov learned of were from Browder's famous site "the Untouchables",
where Magnitsky exposes the corruption of investigators Karpov and Kuznetsov. As it turns out,
there was no exposure. "There was an interrogation, and there was protocol, which shows that
Magnitsky is in the midst of a heavy defensive struggle with the investigation. And he is not
blaming any MIA officers, and doesn't even mention them", writes Nekrasov in his blog on the
website "Echo of Moscow". "Since then (Fall of 2014) my "based on a true story" film began
ripping at the seams. Each day I was more certain that it was based on a lie".
As a result, the director developed his own version of events that was built as a result of
personally studying all sources. According to Nekrasov, Magnitsky was not an auditor but an
accountant who was arrested for tax fraud. He died in prison not because of beatings or other
illegal pressures but as a result of a fatal deterioration of health caused by being confined.
Browder, as a political attack on Russia used his tragic death in retaliation for his expulsion
from the country in 2005 and termination of business. And this is how his interests coincided
the U.S. foreign policy objectives: it is how the "Magnitsky Act" was born, the effect of which
has recently spread globally. The main thing that Nekrasov understood was that Magnitsky was
not murdered and has not pressed charges against the investigators.
It is not surprising that Browder was so ready to actively oppose the showing of Nekrasov's
film. Forces all too powerful are drawn into the story. The previous film showing in the
European Parliament that was scheduled for April 27th, and it too met resistance and was
cancelled. The organizers received a letter with threats from Browder and were unable to
withstand pressure. A member of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala particularly mentioned
this. She called the pressure "sudden and strong". The fact that the premier of this film was
so easily removed from a scheduled screening in the European Parliament shows that the right to
the freedom of speech is offered only to one side", said the film's screening organizer Natalia
Veselnitskaya.
A near future will show how another attack of this unscrupulous billionaire will end. Nekrasov
himself seems to hope for the best, and that the Europeans will still see his honest
investigation and will draw conclusions. "An 'Oscar' is not necessary. But we will see the
idols fall", said the director.
This documentary caused an uproar in Russia when it appeared in April of 2016.
This film was made by the main Russian government news broadcasting company, Rossiya 1.
It alleges that Bill Browder, the legendary American hedge fund manager who from 1995 - 2005
was the largest foreign investor in Russia, controlling billions of $ and a significant share
of Russia's leading companies, was in fact a CIA front.
At one point his funds owned 7% of Gazprom, using what the film argues were illegal schemes
to acquire shares
The film argues that Browder's whole involvement with Russia was a CIA operation to disrupt
Russia politically and economically
It alleges that in 2006, Browder was instructed by the CIA to provide financial support to the
rising opposition politician, Alexei Navalny, and that the two then closely cooperated for the
next 5 years.
As evidence, the film cites hacked CIA email and skype correspondence which it claims fell
into Russian hands during the government upheaval in Kiev in 2014.
When the film appeared, Browder and Navalny charged that the evidence was faked, and Navalny
sued Rossiya 1 for libel. As of the translation of this video, (July 2016), the suit has not
been concluded.
Browder was expelled from Russia in 2006, after which he led a highly successful public
campaign criticizing Russia and Putin. The film argues that the campaign was financed by the
CIA.
The campaign demanded sanctions against Russia for what Browder alleged was the murder of
one of his employees, Sergei Magnitsky, and theft from his companies, by corrupt Russian
officials.
His campaign resulted in the famous "Magnitsky Act" sanctions against Russia, passed by
Congress in 2012.
The film alleges that this cynically misrepresents the facts. It alleges that Magnitsky
ended up in jail for carrying out major fraud for Browder, and that he was on the verge of
testifying against Browder when he died. It cites the hacked CIA mail as evidence that the CIA
managed to orchestrate Magnitsky's death in prison.
The film argues that the only people with a motive for Magnitsky's death were Browder and
the CIA, because his testimony about the tax fraud would have been devastating.
The film includes embarrassing details of tax avoidance schemes used by Browder and
Magnitsky, including hiring barely literate invalids in remote corners of Russia as fake
executives in order to receive tax breaks amounting to 100s of millions of $.
The film then alleges, again citing the hacked CIA correspondence, that in 2010 Browder paid
Navalny $300,000 to conduct a PR campaign in Russia in support of the Magnitsky Act.
This documentary was never aired separately, rather appeared as a segment within the April
13, 2016 episode of the popular Russian political talk show "Spetsialnii Korrespondent"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAkt...
The episode consisted of an emotional 1.5 hour discussion of the film, with several people
who appeared in the film present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZ3...
(only in Russian)
Of the 10-plus guests, all but one, an American journalist, argued heatedly that Browder had
clearly committed gross financial crimes and agreed with the film.
The comment leading into the beginning of the film is typical of the tone of the talk show,
where the Deputy Chairman of Russia's parliament compares Browder to an "intestinal
tapeworm".
At the conclusion of the film, the talk show guests discussed the film for a further 1.5
hours. About half of the guests were also featured in the film, and they were able to go into
much more detail about their knowledge of the Browder case.
The discussion became very emotional, with some guests shouting about what they alleged are
Browder's crimes.
In April 2016, the head of Russia's powerful Investigative Committee instructed his
subordinates to examine the potential " complicity " of U.S.-born British businessman William
Browder -- once Russia's largest portfolio investor -- in the "murder" of his former employee,
Sergei Magnitsky.
It was a bizarre twist in the saga of Magnitsky, whose 2009 death in a Moscow jail resulted
in a 2012 U.S. law bearing his name that slaps sanctions on Russians deemed to be human rights
abusers. Browder vigorously lobbied for the law, arguing that Magnitsky was tortured and denied
medical treatment for blowing the whistle on a massive tax fraud allegedly involving Russian
law enforcement and tax officials.
Russia, which says Magnitsky's death was a tragedy but denies allegations that he was abused
while in custody, has undertaken an aggressive, multipronged effort in recent years aimed at
discrediting Browder and the narrative underpinning the U.S. Magnitsky Act.
The law was said to be at the
center of a meeting between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., and other confidants of
U.S. President Donald Trump at a controversial meeting in New York in June 2016.
Investigative Committee chief Aleksander Bastrykin's call last year to probe allegations of
Browder's possible role in Magnitsky's death was explicitly linked to a documentary on Russian
state TV that alleged a byzantine conspiracy between Browder, British intelligence, and Russian
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny.
But for 18 months, it was unclear if this probe had gone anywhere.
According to an October
22 report by The New York Times, however, Russian authorities are indeed pursuing a
possible murder charge against Browder -- and citing evidence that parrots widely mocked claims
presented in the documentary broadcast on Rossia-1 television a day prior to the Investigative
Committee's announcement.
Citing documents obtained from a court docket by a lawyer for Magnitsky's family, the Times
reported that Russian prosecutors allege Browder colluded with a representative of Britain's
MI6 to convince doctors to withhold medical care to "cause the death of S.L. Magnitsky" while
he was in custody.
RFE/RL reached out to Browder, who said he was not immediately able to provide a copy of the
documents in question.
Prosecutors, according to the Times report, also cite alleged intercepts of intelligence
communications and suggest the goal of the purported plot was to start "a significant news
trigger to discredit" Russia.
They also cite claims made in the Rossia-1 documentary, including that Browder was in
cahoots with Navalny in a purported secret operation titled "Quake" -- with Browder supposedly
using the code name "Solomon" and Navalny using the moniker "Freedom."
Clumsy Fakes
The documentary featured scans of alleged secret U.S. and British documents concerning
Browder, Navalny, and Magnitsky that were widely ridiculed as crude fakes based on their clumsy
syntax and grammatical mistakes -- including improper use of English indefinite and definite
articles that often stymie native Russian speakers.
The claims by Russian prosecutors, as reported by the Times, echo one alleged CIA document
from 2009 shown in the Rossia-1 program with the awkward subject line: "Report on the health
status of a Sergei Magnitsky."
The document purports that Browder ("Agent Solomon") "was offered by proxies in the Russian
Federal Penitentiary Service to arrange the termination of any medical services for
Magnitsky...which could lead to his death."
That document is signed by "V. Plame" -- an apparent reference to former CIA covert officer
Valerie Plame, who was exposed by officials in the administration of President Georgia W. Bush
after her husband criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Plame on Twitter called the document, purportedly from 2009, " such nonsense " and noted that
she left the CIA in 2007.
The Russian Investigative Committee did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment on The New
York Times report, and officials there could not immediately be reached by telephone.
The report was published just days after Canada on October 19 passed its version of the
Magnitsky Act, a move that Russian President Vladimir Putin called " unconstructive
political games ."
Browder U.S. Travel Blocked?
Browder, meanwhile, is claiming that Russia has placed him on an Interpol list, and that his
U.S. "global entry status" -- which can expedite entry to the
United States -- has been revoked by U.S. officials, The Guardian reported.
Interpol has previously refused to place the investor, whom Russia convicted in absentia on
tax-evasion charges in 2013, on an international wanted list at Moscow's request.
The Guardian reported over the weekend that
Russia had used a loophole allowing governments to place individuals on the Interpol
database unilaterally.
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an e-mailed statement that
Browder's visa waiver had been "manually approved" on October 18, though Browder told the
Associated Press that he had been informed by U.S. authorities of his rejection on October
19.
Browder said on Twitter late on October 23 that his waiver had been " restored " and that he has
"successfully checked into a U.S. flight."
It took place in New York on Feb 3, 2015, when marshals from the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan tried to serve him a subpoena to give evidence as part of the only trial thus far on
US soil proceeding from the Magnitsky Act. (The details of that case can be found
here .) The reason for Mr. Browder's nervous behavior is obvious: his arguments served only
political aims and were intended for cases in which the verdict is known from the beginning.
But none of his claims could stand up to scrutiny by any experienced lawyer once real business
interests were at stake, and this is exactly what happened with Mark Cymrot from BakerHostetler
during Browder's court deposition on Apr 15,
2015.
Returning to Perepelichny, we have to acknowledge that he was a key witness who could
potentially destroy the high-political-stakes scam being conducted with the Magnitsky dossier.
As Browder was responding with " I do not recall " and " I do not know " to
any real question asked him in court, the US judiciary system might have been very interested
in hearing from Perepelichny. This menace to the Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before
the bill passed the US House: on Nov. 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside
his mansion in London. The police investigation did not yield any tangible results, but the
theory of "Russian mafia" involvement was
implanted in the international media at the proper time. One month later the Magnitsky Act
was signed by President Obama
"... When some Washington (politician) was asked why he opposed Trump - He is not part of the Security establishment. "Security establishment" = insider ..."
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting
now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level
international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play.
One of the clear missions of Russian state television in 2016, the year of elections to the State Duma has been to
discredit Alexei Navalny, the long established blogger, wily critic of the Kremlin and leader of the new
generation 'non-systemic' opposition by exposing him as a fraud in the pay of Russia's Western rivals and
ill-wishers.
Several weeks ago Russian state television broadcast hidden camera recordings of Navalny's first meeting with Carl Bildt, former Swedish premier and foreign minister, best known in this part of the world for leading the Eastern Partnership program aimed at removing former Soviet republics, notably Ukraine, from the Russian sphere of influence.
A
screen shot from the documentary, with what is allegedly a conversation between Browder and Navalny
This past Sunday, the
Vesti nedeli
program, a prime time Sunday evening wrap-up of the week's news
presented by the senior journalist and manager of Russia's informational broadcasting resources, Dmitry Kiselyov,
showed excerpts from a documentary film about Navalny and his mentor, or handler, William F. Browder. (Video
below - in Russian only)
The film, entitled "The Browder Effect," was assembled by the channel's investigative reporter and presenter in his
own right, Yevgeni Popov. The full version of "The Browder Effect" will be aired on Wednesday evening, 13 April on
Russia's flagship network, Pervyi Kanal. However, from the lengthy segments shown on Sunday it is possible to draw
some conclusions about the sensational material it sets out.
Both Vesti 24 and Pervyi Kanal are Russian language stations directed at the domestic audience.
From the standpoint of their management, whatever is sensational about the film has to do with the way it
conclusively details Navalny's recruitment by Bill Browder in 2007 for a program run by Britain's Secret Intelligence
Service, also known as Military Intelligence (MI6), intended to destabilize the Russian government. Navalny came to
the attention of MI6 because Browder determined he was "the most suitable candidate for future political leader"
given his creativity, new media mastery and speaking skills on politics, law and economics.
We then follow Navalny's progress as a foreign-paid trouble-maker engaged in standing up for minority shareholders and exposing corruption in major Russian, partly state-owned companies, meaning that he was busily attacking Vladimir Putin's direct appointees. We are told Navalny was next a useful aid to U.S. authorities in compiling a list of high Russian judicial and penal administrative officials for inclusion in the Magnitsky List on the basis of their alleged involvement in the torture and murder in detention of Browder's erstwhile accountant, Sergei Magnitsky. One document from 2010 indicates Navalny received large sums of money, at one point a $300,000 payment, from his overseas handlers to apply his skills with social media and disseminate a positive spin on American sanctions to Russia's liberals and creative classes. The objective was to undermine popular trust in the courts.
The last documents involving Navalny shown on the Vesti nedeli
program Sunday date from just before
the State Duma elections on 4 December 2011, which were followed by massive street demonstrations against what was
called electoral fraud perpetrated by the ruling party. Notwithstanding the advice from his mentor, Browder, to
stick with his economic warfare on Russian big business and stay out of politics, this was the point when Navalny
went on to emerge as a key leader in the new generation of forces opposed to the Kremlin.
For Western observers, there is nothing sensational in the exposé of Navalny as a paid agent of British intelligence operating under the code name "Freedom." He is a remote personality, has been denounced by some in the West as a Russian nationalist and he is at liberty, not a prisoner of conscience. The truly sensational nature of Yevgeny Popov's film lies elsewhere, in its material on Browder. If Navalny was recruited by Browder, then Popov was obliged to show how it was that the billionaire co-founder and owner of Hermitage Capital, which was at one point the largest foreign portfolio investment company in Russia, could be an agent, code named "Solomon," in the MI6 documents presented on screen.
To answer this question, the film flashes back to 1995, and a Memorandum for the Chief of Secret Intelligence dated 12 July describing the attraction of Browder for his new bosses:
"he is an important figure in
integration of financial structures into the Russian economy. [He] has extensive contacts with [sic] international
banking community and has [sic] wide range of relations with representatives of business communities in the UK,
the USA, Europe, China and India."
This was about the time when Browder was making a transition from highly paid employee heading up the section of private investing in Russia at Salomon Brothers (hence the coy code name, a corruption of Salomon) to setting up his own investment company with seed capital from the elderly Syrian-Jewish-Brazilian banker and entrepreneur Edmond Safra. It was also the time when Browder, a US citizen became a British subject.
And so that we may understand why such talents and contacts could be useful to British (and by extension to American) intelligence, a further flashback to 28 August 1986 shows us a CIA document entitled "Change the Constitutional and Political System in Eastern Europe and the USSR" signed by the agency director Wiliam Casey. Among the specific actions within the scope of this program would be "getting control over financial flows and removing assets from the economies of developed countries."
The narrator explains that even more than 25 years after the disappearance of the USSR, this CIA policy, known as "The Quake" (Drozh', in Russian) remains in effect.
Not content with proving that a billionaire investment fund owner could also be an MI6 operative, the film's producer also saw fit to demolish via documentary proof the entire Browder story about the reasons for his being declared persona non grata in Russia in 2006 as a threat to national security and about the persecution of his loyal retainer Magnitsky at the hands of rapacious Moscow officials plundering the remains of his company.
It emerges from a memorandum to the Director of Central intelligence written on CIA letterhead and dated 20 September 2009 that Browder had discussed with MI6 the deteriorating health of Magnitsky in detention and that he was involved in plans to have the penitentiary service arrange the termination of medical services. The report went on to say that this 'medical error' could lead to Magnitsky's death.
A follow-on interview with one political analyst explains that Browder was the only one who could profit from Magnitsky's demise. We are told his former protégé was about to start talking to prosecution against his employers. Then his death provided the material for the cause célèbre that Browder would ride to nation-wide prominence in the USA and in Europe with the eventual passage of the sanctions on Russia he promoted as the just punishment for corrupt and murderous officials of the Putin regime.
Thus, the collateral damage resulting from Yevgeni Popov's exposé amounts to a devastating attack on the political situation in the United States, where the CIA is shown to have been complicit in setting up the case used to move the American political mood and legislation in a harshly anti-Russian direction via the Magnitsky Act sanctions. Here is a smoking gun of great potential importance for those who care about who is actually controlling the US government if not our elected leaders.
Part of the documentary rests on expert testimony of Russian political analysts. Part rests on skype texts and on telephone conversations intercepted by the Russian intelligence agencies. But the most important material, including the aforementioned 'smoking gun' come from documents in a cache prepared by Kremlin-nemesis Boris Berezovsky in London as he tried to negotiate with Vladimir Putin a possible return to his motherland that would land him in good graces and not in a prison cell.
One sequence in the documentary introduces us to Sergei Sokolov, the former chief of security for Berezovsky who, at his boss's instructions, hid copies of this cache of documents in several locations and eventually brought a set with him to Moscow, where we may assume Russian intelligence officers pored over them. Sokolov is not a new face to viewers of Russian state television. Several months ago he was shown in a documentary examining the death of Berezovsky in one of his London properties. The cache of documents was mentioned then but not described.
This peculiar provenance of the documents means that they should have been subjected to special scrutiny by Mr. Popov's team before presentation to the general public. Considering the possible impact of the content of these documents on US-Russian relations, such caution would be doubly recommended. Regrettably, that appears not to have been the case.
In the information war that has been ongoing and escalating to fever pitch ever since Vladimir Putin made his famous accusatory speech directed against the United States at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, I have examined closely a succession of key documents produced by the American side and its close allies and discovered patent fraud and forgeries.
In
my essay on the article "Containing Russia"
signed but not written by Yulia Tymoshenko and published in
Foreign Affairs magazine in the spring of 2007, I demonstrated how textual analysis could turn up inconsistencies
that give the lie to official attribution.
The same essay pointed out the fraud perpetrated by the German Marshall Fund in the summer of 2008 when it commissioned an open letter denouncing Barack Obama's recently launched policy of re-set which was distributed to and published by The New York Times and other mainstream media as a cri de coeur from Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and other Cold War heroes in the struggle against Soviet domination.
Still another essay of mine devoted to the launch of the EU's Eastern Partnership Program at a summit in Prague in May 2009 pointed to the American spelling used in the Southern Corridor papers presented in the concurrent summit on the New Silk Road for energy. While interference by MS Word spellcheck cannot be totally eliminated as an explanation, the greater likelihood was that these ostensibly European documents on a new, anti-Russian energy policy were written in Washington, D.C. See my book Stepping Out of Line, pp. 315 ff.
It is with this background of interest in textual analysis that I have approached the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect" and at once serious questions arose. In one or two documents, my reservations are at the level of tell-tale signs of Russian speakers' intervention: namely absence of or poor control over the use of articles. In the one memo where this occurs most, it could be just telegraphic style, but it stands out and differs from the other texts. Another document has one specifically Russian turn of speech. More generally, it is disconcerting that memorandums from the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the one memorandum on CIA letterhead are formatted identically. The most recent document, from MI6, the "Report on performing duties under special operation 'Magnitsky list'" is dated 'Jan 23, 2010,' American style; it has the American spelling of "program" and British punctuation. Such mongrel style does not usually exist in nature.
It is impossible to say what is the source of the problems cited. One possibility is that the documents, which are said to have come from the US embassy in London, were copied out by hand and mistakes were made in the transcription. Then they were retyped in a single style. Another possibility is that they are forgeries, pure and simple.
Having called attention to these issues, I hasten to add that the content of the documents as they concern Bill Browder ring true to my understanding of his possible role in the entire Magnitsky case. I say this on the basis of my personal reading of Browder during his two visits to Brussels in 2013 when I saw him and his road show exhibits up close.
In his first visit, at a public seminar on Russian political prisoners held in the European Parliament building on 5 June 2013, Browder brought a collection of spiteful witnesses intent on blackening the reputation of Vladimir Putin and his 'regime.' The seminar, which was sponsored by the neo-Liberal ALDE faction in the Parliament, was scheduled to take place one day after the publication of an Address to Foreign and Interior Ministers of the EU signed by 47 European Parliamentarians pressing on the EU executive the adoption of a law similar to the so-called Magnitsky Act.
Notwithstanding the various particular messages and particular concerns of the diverse panel, united only in its opposition to the Putin regime, the event was called to promote such a Magnitsky bill and those on the podium spoke in unison in its favor, disseminating the (manifestly false) idea that the bill enjoyed broad support within Russia and was only opposed by the regime itself. The entire proceedings were video recorded, presumably for future use in the halls of power by the event's sponsors.
At that event, Browder spoke very little. His task as master of ceremonies was to introduce his assembled witnesses. These included Mikhail Kasyanov, former prime minister and leader of the Parnas Party, together with Boris Nemtsov, the allied party to ALDE in the Russian Federation. A tearful speech was delivered by Pavel Khodorkovsky, son of the then still imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. But perhaps the most passionate speech was by the iconic freedom fighter Ludmila Alexeeva, former leading personality in the Moscow Helsinki Group. In her mid-80s but still very active, Alexeeva likened the environment in Russia to 1937, year of the Great Purge.
I wrote up my impressions of Browder's second visit to Brussels that year,
in a November essay
. On that occasion, which was nominally to present a book he financed promoting a Magnitsky
Act for Europe at the Brussels Press Club, Browder once again presented assorted witnesses, including the
particularly odious Vladimir Kara Murza, an unrestrained propagandist against the Putin regime and fellow-traveler
of the Parnas group. What was most revealing was the Q&A session in which Browder dropped his genial mask and
spoke openly about the need to punish by sanctions the million thieves and murderers who run Russia. His stated
objective was regime change.
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, Browder was enjoying vast popularity in the USA, was not doing badly in Europe and no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies.
Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeni Popov deserves credit for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we come to definitive answers.
The author is the European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. His most recent
book, "Does Russia Have a Future", was published in August 2015.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
I never liked Browder. His background reminds me too much of Armand Hammer (named after Arm &
Hammer). He had relatives that were jailed in the US as Stalin-era NKVD spies. He renounced his US
citizenship in part, for what the US did to them and the persecution of his father. The apple never
falls far from the tree. Another Berezovsky-type.
After what has happened in Ukraine, regardless of this programme; the Parnas party are going
nowhere, this just adds to the commonly held negative views of people like Navalny and his liberal
gang
Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already planning
other Ukraine-like destabilisation of Latvia, in order to further promote a further escalation
of the NATO-Russian relationship up to the moment they want to enforce a Russian response to
violence against the Latvian Russian minority with the use of tactile nuclear weapons which
would then allow a full war-response by NATO. The want to incite a rebellion of that minority,
to which the Latvian government, after first attempts to reconcile, is pressed by Poles and
Ukrainians to react toughly, so that step for step the situation becomes worse – up to the
moment of physical violence against the Russian minority which then would provoke a Russian
reaction for their support.
The plan was figured out by a thinktank for a US-conference
entitled "Rethinking Amageddon – Planning Scenarios for the Second Nuclear Age" on the 12th
February 2016.
According to the plans, worked out their by US-thinktanks, they have sketched their an
elaborate path to a full scale war in scripts available in the net.
While they know that unwilling and (in their eyes) too compromising and de-escalting EU
countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, the Chechs and the Greeks, could be an obstacle, they
have as well started various taskforce for the "information warfare". One which is directed to
make Europe's population swallow the idea of NATO airstrikes against Russia held a conference in
Novermber 2015 in Essen, Germany. Their strategic report can as well be found in the internet.
It shows the direction of NATO propaganda and the determination to abuse all our media for that
purpose:
It's all quite obvious, they do not even hide it. They are so damn sure that the public might
be distracted to the degree of complete disregard to all these plans – although they are
publicly available.
What can we do to prevent their scenario of a full scale Amageddon of Europe?
with all due consideration to potential and likely inevitable LOSSES ..
the RUSSIANS - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - no matter how remotely russian MUST BEGIN PREPARATIONS TO LEAVE -- and start transferring assets, however that goes n the
procedures...
i am talking about REAL ''PICK UP AND START LIFE" AGAIN..it is going to be a painful
process and they will have to sacrifice much of what they have established for generations in
the baltics...IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that the DUMA is about to approve the 1 hectare free ,
no tax for ''every russian citizen and foreigner that wants to establish in Russia for any
business or personal reasons -- EXCEPT to sell to foreigners" anyway.. And at least whatever
the limitations of that -- they DO have something to ''go home to" ..
a dacha, a new house, to build on free land, something...
RATHER THAN WAIT for their possessions to be confiscated, burned, and their lives
miserable BECAUSE they are russian in latvia, and baltics as will SURELY COME because they
are going to be used as ''BAIT" BY NATO/USA BALTICS to provoke russia.
but it is ALSO CLEAR that WORSE will come unless they already do it now. it is better that
whatever 'losses" they have to make for picking up - houses to sell, even at lower prices,
etc...are NOTHING COMPARED to if the USA/NATO/BALTICS
EVENTUALLY will provoke something like what happened in UKRAINE. AND BY LEAVING THEY
REMOVE A VERY, VERY LARGE part of national assets with them TO their true homeland in russia.
and at least -- literally -- BE SAFE.
IT HAS come to that point and the lessons of Ukraine, etc...have already shown they are
RUNNING OUT OF TME and can not rely on HOPE that things will be better and the worst can be
avoided. NOT AT ALL - THE USA ANGLO-AMERICAN regme changers through the baltics are INTENT on
creating a 'vietnam" RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
AND THE RUSSIAN ETHNICS better make their preparations now . bank accounts,
etc...businesses to liquidate -- invest again in russia, simply MAKE their chilldren
understand the critical importance that their very LIVES are at stake FOR BEING RUSSIANS.
AND it partly removes the EXCUSE by the USA/NATO/BALTICS. ''the russians left -- all of them" WHERE IS THIS RUSSIAN EXPANSION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? "IF you cross even an inch of russian borders -- your shps SINK, PERIOD".
it HAS TO be that kind of ''red line" now. as the LUNATICS OF the west and baltcs can't
and WON'T stop their lunacy. it is really time for KREMLIN RUSSIA - FORTRESS russia to make
the decisions without further delay , imo. and it has to now include the russian ethnics - they MUST FLEE - just like CRIMEA AND EAST
UKRAINE HAVE DONE -- FROM WESTERN FASCISTS that are impending in descending upon them.
- Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already
planning
I haven't gone through the sources yet. But are you telling the sources tells "US"
wants to destabilize Russia, and also start a WW? US is a superpower in decline -> US has
more important problems to worry about
US think tank - does not have to mean the client is US
A Russian think tank may be pro-Putin or anti-Putin. In last case that is not a "Russian"
think tank, more an Oligarch think tank
The US either wants to topple an independent Russian government or to go step for step up
a pre-planned escalation ladder. The fictitious scenario in the script, composed by a
thinktank for that conference, shows something like a chess arrangement: We will make move
x1, then they either will have to surrender or they will go step y1. Secondly we make move
x2, then they will either have to.... and so on.
In this scenario (which really names
the dates of the described chain of events, supposed to start next year) they really think
through any use of the weapons they have at their disposal.
And a second aspect becomes obvious: They are determined never to allow any of their
"allies" turning out to be a possible game-changer. They take into consideration that they
may always use Poland and Lithuania for the next step of escalation, if it's convenient,
and the German government to slow things down, if they need it. But that any other country
could persuade them to alter any of their steps or even the general course is definitely
outruled.
Nuclear war is not at all a no-go for the US, while I am absolutely sure that the
Russians would only make use of it under the inescapble threat of physical extinction -
following the clear message: "If you decide, we have to die, we won't go alone."
This is as well Ron Paul's view, that of Clinton's defense secretary William Perry and
Andre Damon's interpretation of John Kerry's current message to Japan.
Your source (1) is Washington DC / Pentagon related
http://csbaonline.org/publi...
We may equal that with Hillary in US. Your source (2) "FutureWorld Fundation"
My source (1) is from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. The persons
who sign responsible are all US congressmen. They have as well produced the script I
have linked (even if the link was as well given on the sites of Future World.)
Wikipedia says about the CSB:
"The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent,
non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in US defense policy,
force planning, and budgets. It is headed by Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point
graduate. According to its website, CSBA's mission is "to promote innovative
thinking and debate about national security strategy, defense planning and military
investment options [and] to enable policymakers to make informed decisions in
matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation."[1] CSBA emphasizes
initiatives the United States and its allies can take to wisely invest in the
future, even during periods of fiscal austerity and uncertainty. CSBA evaluates its
policy proposals through the net assessment methodology, wargaming, and by estimated
impact on the Department of Defense budget over multiple Future Years Defense
Programs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
How can you claim it has nothing to do with the US-administration?
the destabilizing of Russia project goes apace, even accelerating - it is what the USA
has to do in order to preserve its primacy - that's the whole point. it knows it is a
vicious rabid dog cornered in its exposed brutality so now -- it is lashing out in all
directions -- it's an all-out war, . that has actually been going from the USA FOR A LONG
TIME NOW. it can't help itself -- it's what the USA IS AND DOES.
Not very plausible, as Navalny spend time int he USA in YYale, so if he was recruted it is
probably during his stay in the USA, but connection of Bill Browder and MI6 is plausible
According to MI6 and CIA internal documents, Alexei Navalny had been recruited to work for
MI6 by UK hedge fund manager Bill Browder. His task is to carry out operation "Quake" which
aims to undermine the existing constitutional order of the Russian Federation. He is being paid
handsomely for his services via the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) human rights organisation.
Russia has claimed Magnitsky died of natural causes and, in a new twist, is now accusing
Browder of colluding with a British spy in 2009 "to cause the death of S. L. Magnitsky by
persuading Russian prison doctors to withhold care," according
to The New York Times .
From Vimeo site comment section: "Cynthia Buckner, 22 hours ago What a detective story, I watched it two times. This is what
making a documentary is all about, uncovering truth under layers of lies. This is why today's News Media is nothing but "Fake
News".
It's no longer available on Bitchute site. In any case, the two I have downloaded have
been dubbed in Russian. I was hoping to watch it later, but it's going take me awhile to
learn the language.
Amazing story of lies and deceit on the part of Browder seems like. I don't judge people
by the way they look, but just looking and listening to this guy makes me believe he is one
BIG slimey fellow, even without watching the movie.
I'd turn him over to the Russians for questioning. After all, he has nothing to worry
about if he has nothing to hide.
"... In Brussels, Trump attacked Frau Merkel. How does she dare to buy Russian gas, if Germany faces a Russian threat? ..."
"... NATO is an instrument of American control over Europe, and Washington keeps dozens of bases in Europe, in particular – in Germany. Germany has remained under American occupation since 1945. This would seem good for America, but the occupied and controlled Western European states are tied to the Clinton camp, to Democrats and liberals. They do not accept Trump as their rightful sovereign. And Europe does not pay for its occupation, so it is costly. Of course, it is a great honour to occupy and control the great powers of the past, England, France, the Netherlands, Spain. But it costs a lot of money for America. Likewise, in 1990 Russia discovered that it is expensive to control surly East Germany, independent Poland, sunny Georgia, tricky Armenia, populous Uzbekistan and the rainy Baltic States. ..."
"... Russians are in a very uncomfortable seat. All their neighbours are subject to American pressure to annoy Russia, be it Georgia (once they even attacked Russia militarily being led by American and Israeli advisers) or the Ukraine (Americans arranged a coup d'état and installed extremely hostile to Russia government in Kiev). American military bases surround Russia and NATO troops drew closer and closer to its centres. American military budget of 600 billion dollars dwarfs the Russian one, while the armaments' race can undermine Russian finances. If Russia were a woman, she would scream: stop it! ..."
"... From the beginning to the end, the US media was highly hostile to Trump and to his mission in Europe. They eagerly followed anti-Trump demos and exaggerated his every blunder. Google obediently trailed at the top Twitter messages of the ex-CIA boss calling Trump 'a traitor'. All prominent Western newspapers spoke of Trump's 'treason'. ..."
"... In the current Russophobian climate, it would have been impossible to concede almost anything to Russia, and V. Putin understands this. But as Russiagate unravels ever so slowly, he will have more room. But as long as both leaders agreed not to start WWIII , something has been achieved, therefore I also believe the Iran threats to be posturing, it would make sense if Russia have calmed Israel, what the current situation indicates. ..."
"... The US knows fully well than an Iran war would not be winnable and bring the rest of the world together; the world has not yet overcome the last financial crisis, a new largescale war in the ME could very well crash the Global economy and the petrodollar. Nobody are keen on that. ..."
an orange hurricane, President Trump
made a stormy visit to the Old World. Usually American presidents' visits to Europe present photo
opportunities and vows of eternal love and friendship. Not this time. Since the Mongol invasion, not many
visitors from outside shook Europe like he did. The US President has finally emerged from the cage built by
his political adversaries, and begun to say things his voters wanted to hear.
However, his wonderful daring statements were quickly undermined and
disowned by his ministers and advisers, creating the feeling that Trump speaks only for himself, while the
US administration, his own appointees say the opposite. And then he also repudiated his own statements,
saying he was misunderstood.
The American president increasingly resembles the hero of
The Prince
and The Pauper
, the poor boy who accidentally became a king – and began to behave in a non-royal way:
showing mercy and caring for people. His own staff disregards his commands. Trump says what people like to
hear, but his administration sticks to the original course.
During the first part of his trip he acted a rebel in Wodehouse World with
its feeble men and formidable women. Indeed the West is ruled by formidable aunts and elder sisters. Aunt
Angela in Germany, Aunt Theresa in England, Aunt Brigitte in France. Only Aunt Hillary is missing to
complete the puzzle and establish the rule of Aunties over their hen-pecked nephews.
(Hillary's defeat didn't derail the Aunties' program of emasculation:
#MeToo campaign goes on unabated. Men are afraid to flirt with girls. Henry (
The
Superman
) Cavill admitted as much in an interview, saying that flirting with somebody would be like
"casting myself into the fires of hell", as a person in the public eye. "I think a woman should be wooed and
chased", he said, but it could lead to jail. He was immediately attacked for this heresy: "If Henry Cavill
doesn't want to be called a rapist then all he has to do is not rape anyone", implausibly they claimed. And
he apologised profusely.)
Trump's trip had been accompanied by mass
protest demos. Normally I am all in favour of a good anti-American demo, but in this case, the protesters
were extreme feminists and supporters of unlimited immigration. That's people who like the Aunties, and hate
Uncles. They do not mind conflict with Russia and even consider Trump as a "Russian agent". They dislike
that he does not obey Aunties.
In the second part of the tour, Trump had met with the formidable Mr
Putin, a real man. Now that we have learned from our reliable sources what had happened in the palatial
halls of Helsinki (excepting face-to-face private talk with Putin) we can describe Trump's Pilgrim's
Progress and share our knowledge and conclusions with you.
In short, President Trump made the right sounds and called for right
solutions, but he has been unable to insist on any. If he were a free man of his own mind, this trip would
transform the world. The way things are, it will remain a sign of his honourable intentions, for everything
he said has been overturned and denied by his aides.
In Brussels, Trump attacked Frau Merkel.
How does she dare to buy Russian gas, if Germany faces a Russian threat? Why does it accept immigrants and
refugees who undermine the European way of life? Saying that, he sided with "the populists", the Italians,
Hungarians and Austrians, whose top politicians are male and friendly to Trump and Putin.
The Brussels meeting almost came to an
undoing of NATO. Trump hinted that the US would leave NATO unless they pay. They have to pay more, much
more, if they want to have American protection.
Could he mean it? NATO is an instrument
of American control over Europe, and Washington keeps dozens of bases in Europe, in particular – in Germany.
Germany has remained under American occupation since 1945. This would seem good for America, but the
occupied and controlled Western European states are tied to the Clinton camp, to Democrats and liberals.
They do not accept Trump as their rightful sovereign. And Europe does not pay for its occupation, so it is
costly. Of course, it is a great honour to occupy and control the great powers of the past, England, France,
the Netherlands, Spain. But it costs a lot of money for America. Likewise, in 1990 Russia discovered that it
is expensive to control surly East Germany, independent Poland, sunny Georgia, tricky Armenia, populous
Uzbekistan and the rainy Baltic States.
There is no certainty that the countries of Europe will agree to pay and
submit to Trump's demands. In Germany, there are growing voices demanding the Yankees be sent home, that is,
to ask the American soldiers to leave Germany. It would be good if NATO were to disintegrate and disappear,
like the Warsaw Treaty Organization disappeared. Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to return the
American soldiers home. Perhaps we shall witness Pax Americana without American troops in Europe, like
England fictitiously claimed to belong to the Roman Empire, though Roman legions had left, and Rome lost all
interest in foggy Albion.
In England, Trump confronted Mrs May.
She reminded him of his school mistress, and Donald does not like school mistresses. The soft Brexit, which
she intends to conclude, is a complete bummer, not a Brexit, he said. Under the proposed treaty, all
prerogatives remain in Brussels. So, there can be no trade agreement between the United States and Britain.
America will negotiate directly with Brussels. And in general, it would be better if May transferred Downing
Street 10 to her former Foreign Secretary, a hard-line Brexit supporter, the red-headed Bojo (as the Brits
call Boris Johnson, who had just resigned, resenting the proposed plan for soft Brexit).
The European Union is an American
design, too. Why, then, does the US President want to undermine it by removing the UK, his own Trojan Horse?
Apparently, it means that the globalist forces have entered a state of direct confrontation with America.
This first part of Trump's tour had been
followed by the Kremlin with satisfaction. The Kremlin also believes that NATO has become obsolete, and that
Brexit is the right step. Russia instinctively disapproves of mass migration, just like Trump.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump's meeting with President Putin had
been postponed for a year; both men were eager to meet. Trump wanted to meet another strong man, a powerful
chieftain who can assist him in building a new world, instead of the one created under Obama, by media and
Supreme Court Judges. President Putin wanted to solve bilateral issues and to ease American pressure upon
Russia.
Their problems were very different. The
main problems of Trump were Mme Clinton and Barack Obama, and the whole army of their obstinate followers
who didn't recognise Trump's legitimacy. Putin couldn't do much for him, with all his sympathy.
Putin's problem is the hybrid warfare
carried out by the United States against Russia. Despite accusations you hear in your media (alleged Russian
ads in the Facebook and Twitter influencing voters), American pressure on Russia is very real and very
painful. American officials try to wreck every international deal Russia attempts to clinch. It is not only,
or even mainly about weapons. If a country A wants to sell Russians, say, bananas, the US ambassador will
come to A's king, or his minister, and will expressly forbid him to sell bananas to godless Russians.
Otherwise, do not expect the US aid, or do not count on US favours in your disputes with your neighbours, or
the US won't buy your production, or US banks will take another long and jaundiced view at your financial
transactions. You witnessed the
scene
, when the crazed Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, threatened sovereign nations with
severe punishment for voting against the US desires, so you have an idea of American delicacy and caution
while pushing their will through.
Russians are in a very uncomfortable
seat. All their neighbours are subject to American pressure to annoy Russia, be it Georgia (once they even
attacked
Russia militarily being led by American and Israeli advisers) or the Ukraine (Americans arranged a
coup d'état
and installed extremely hostile to Russia government in Kiev). American military bases
surround Russia and NATO troops drew closer and closer to its centres. American military budget of 600
billion dollars dwarfs the Russian one, while the armaments' race can undermine Russian finances. If Russia
were a woman, she would scream: stop it!
Perhaps our colleague
Mr Andrei Martyanov
is right and the US can't destroy Russia militarily; perhaps
Immanuel Wallerstein
is correct and American power is in decline; but meanwhile the US is perfectly able
to make life hard and difficult for any state. It made life unbearably hard for North Korea, extremely hard
for Iran. Russia is not doing half as good as she could do without ceaseless American meddling.
President Putin would like Trump to
relent. There is no reason for this incessant picking on Russia; it is not Communist anymore; it is much
smaller and less populous than the former USSR; it wants to live in peace as a member of the family of
nations, not as a great alternative. The anti-Russian offensive began in earnest in the days of previous US
presidents, namely Obama and Clinton; so it would make sense for Trump to stop it.
Problem is, President Trump is also
actively engaged in war against Russia. Just a few days ago he pressured the German Chancellor to give up on
the North Stream-2, to stop buying Russian gas. His advisers demanded that Turkey desist from buying a
Russian antimissile system. The US Air Force bombed Russian troops in Syria.
Still Putin made a good try. He proposed
to hold a referendum in the Donbas area of Eastern Ukraine which is presently independent though lacking
international recognition. The people of Donbas had their own referendum in 2014, and voted for
independence; Kiev regime and its Western sponsors denied its validity as it was done under Russian army's
protection, they claimed. Now Putin proposed a re-run under international auspices.
Trump ostensibly agreed, he said it was
a good idea, and he asked for the opinion of John Bolton, his national security advisor; Bolton confirmed it
was a good idea. This was in Helsinki; however, since then the idea had been rejected by the Americans, as
the Kiev regime balked at it. The regime knows well that the people of Eastern Ukraine aren't likely to opt
for their tender mercies, and Trump administration won't push Kiev to agree to secession, or to abide by the
Minsk agreements and let them re-join federal Ukraine as an autonomous unit. So this haemorrhaging wound at
the western border of Russia will bleed on.
As for Syria, Putin told Trump that he
agreed upon the arrangements with Mr Netanyahu to keep Iranians and their militias at some 80 km away from
the disengagement (1974) lines at the Golan Heights. (Iranians are now going through a difficult stretch and
they accepted this solution without a murmur.) This was acceptable to Trump, and both presidents stressed
that they value Israeli security highly.
(They have differing reasons for it.
Putin wants Syria to remain in peace under his protégé and ally President Bashar Assad, and for this, he
needs some security arrangements with pugnacious Israel. Putin is aware of Jewish state's ability to pull
strings and he doesn't want to antagonise it. Putin also wants Trump to be happy, and Israel is a point of
huge importance for the US President, much more than for Putin.
Trump sacrifices at the altar of Israel
to propitiate the Jews he is fighting in the US. Trump fights everything American Jews stand for, against
all they achieved recently. He wants to have them back in the cash flow cubicle, the 'short guys that wear
yarmulkes every day', counting his notes. They want much, much more: they wish to dominate and rule America
their own way. Trump is ready to give all he can to Israel, so the American Jews will be less eager to fight
him.
This ploy had been tried by the German
National-Socialists in 1930s, who gave the Zionist-Socialists the most profitable
Ha'avara deal
to offset and overcome hostility of American Jews. It failed then, it is likely to fail
again, but not before the Zionists will get all they dream of.)
For North Korea, Putin lauded Trump's
move and said he will keep playing a supportive role to American efforts.
ORDER IT NOW
For the bogus "Russian interference in
the US elections", Putin proposed to establish a bilateral expert group for cyber security. Let experts deal
with experts, and sort out the claims, he said. Trump agreed with the idea, though his advisers were quick
to repudiate it upon their return to Washington.
Putin also proposed to allow
cross-examinations on the reciprocity basis: the US investigators will travel to Russia and interrogate
Russian officials indicted by Mueller's team; while Russian investigators will travel to the US and
interrogate Ambassador McFaul for his participation in
Browder affair
. Trump had been impressed by the generous offer; but as he returned to Washington, McFaul
(falsely) claimed Trump intends to send him to the Gulag, and Trump's advisers promptly repudiated the
proposal.
Putin did not intend to arrest and
detain McFaul, just to question him; likewise, he wouldn't permit Mueller investigators to carry Russian
intelligence officers to a Guantanamo of their choice, just to ask them questions. The Browder Affair grows
bigger as time goes: though the rascal was not the biggest of Russian assets' looters, he was the most
outspoken and keen on hanging on the stolen goods. The US advisers from top-league universities implanted in
the Yeltsin administration in 1990s had stolen more; they also facilitated creation of the mighty oligarchs
of that time. However, Browder had more tenacity and he judiciously invested a lion share of his ill-gotten
profits in bribes aiming to suborn the US administration and turn it onto relentless pursuit of Russia.
Ambassador McFaul fronted for him and covered his misdeeds; while McFaul tried to interfere in Russian
electoral process following the precedent established in 1996.
Thus at Helsinki, a pattern had been
established, I was told by a witness. Putin would make a proposal, Trump would tentatively agree and
promptly deny and repudiate on return to Washington.
From the beginning to the end, the
US media was highly hostile to Trump and to his mission in Europe. They eagerly followed anti-Trump demos
and exaggerated his every blunder. Google obediently trailed at the top Twitter messages of the ex-CIA boss
calling Trump 'a traitor'. All prominent Western newspapers spoke of Trump's 'treason'.
Perhaps they would be able to convince
some Republicans to follow their trend, but the
defeat of Rep. Mark Sanford
in South Carolina primaries following Trump's angry Twitter had brought them
to their senses. A Republican leader stated the case well: "Obviously there are going to be those who are
going to criticise him but they're going to criticise him for anything that he says. This committee stands
strong, stands behind him and wants to support him. We're interested not only in the 2018 elections, we're
interested in the 2020 elections as well."
The
result
of violent Trump-is-a-traitor campaign was surprising: 80% of Trump voters approved of his
Helsinki shtick, notwithstanding the vehement accusations. American media had lost its silver touch.
President may continue to build his power structure, and perhaps one day his word will be worth something.
Putin mentioned BILL BROWDER, and Lee Stranahan's twitter caught fire!
Crack the Deep State matrix.
Join Lee's campaign to make Senators answer the question,
"Have you seen Bill Browder's deposition in the
U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings case?"
Full research links, including testimony, here -
Trump sacrifices at the altar of Israel to propitiate the Jews he is fighting in the US. Trump fights
everything American Jews stand for, against all they achieved recently. He wants to have them back in the
cash flow cubicle, the 'short guys that wear yarmulkes every day', counting his notes. They want much,
much more: they wish to dominate and rule America their own way. Trump is ready to give all he can to
Israel, so the American Jews will be less eager to fight him.
This could well be right, with Trump's slavish pro-Israel stance designed to get (some) US Jews off his
back.
The implication is that there is a split between US Jewry and the Israeli's, which seems likely since US
Jews want to dominate and rule America, whereas Israeli Jews want to dominate and rule the Middle East
(different concepts).
The Israeli project is a costly affair for the US, and is leading straight towards an Iran war which
could well duplicate the cost of Iraq. If it happens, the US will inevitably be weakened and further
impoverished – maybe more obviously this time as the US has reached its debt limit – with a guaranteed
increase in social unrest.
US Jewry couldn't care less if the US population is impoverished, but there is the issue that social
unrest builds support for Trump, so Israeli action on Iran may force US Jewry to deal with increased US
popular nationalism – with the (US elite Jewish) instinctive reaction to go for repression.
Basically US Jewry wants to be an untouchable minority elite (US Neo-Bolshevism) but the transition to
totalitarianism can be tricky, and the Israelis may be dangerously accelerating the process for them.
" Problem is, President Trump is also actively engaged in war against Russia. Just a few days ago he
pressured the German Chancellor to give up on the North Stream-2, to stop buying Russian gas. His advisers
demanded that Turkey desist from buying a Russian antimissile system. The US Air Force bombed Russian troops
in Syria. "
As Trump said 'Russia is not a friend, nor a foe, but a competitor.
In Helsinki the gas price was discussed.
I wonder if Shamir understands what's going on, unique in history, the leader of an empire giving up that
empire, because he sees keeping it, even more expanding it, as neocons, AIPAC, AEI, want, is suicide.
"Indeed the West is ruled by formidable aunts and elder sisters."
Better characterised as childless Harpies, agents of globalist punishment, who defecate on the countries
and cultures they purport to represent and torture their people as they carry them down into the abyss of
Tartarus.
In the current Russophobian climate, it would have been impossible to concede almost anything to Russia, and
V. Putin understands this. But as Russiagate unravels ever so slowly, he will have more room. But as long as
both leaders agreed not to start WWIII , something has been achieved, therefore I also believe the Iran
threats to be posturing, it would make sense if Russia have calmed Israel, what the current situation
indicates.
The US knows fully well than an Iran war would not be winnable and bring the rest of the world together; the
world has not yet overcome the last financial crisis, a new largescale war in the ME could very well crash
the Global economy and the petrodollar. Nobody are keen on that.
There are numerous agendas and countless anti-Trump saboteurs at play in this latest escalation.
Nevertheless, it is in America's economic and security interests (as well as Russia's) to ease military
tensions and seek normalized relations.
Why not?
After all, the USSR collapsed nearly 3o years ago. And with it died the 'cold war'. America now trades
with communist China. So why not Christian Russia? What's the real roadblock? The last election? That's impossible to believe. Russian 'interference' (if it occurred at all) was not decisive. And what
Russia is alleged to have done is not unique or particularly unusual. Besides, the new cold war with Russia had been brewing for years. So what's behind it all?
This is where the oversized Israeli footprint in US politics rears its ugly head. International Zionists have their not-so-secret list of 'demands'. This list gets Washington's attention. So here's the Israeli deal: Russia's alliance with Iran and Syria must be 'contained' and diminshed. And
Putin–unless he capitulates–must be kept in his box, isolated. This is what Israel wants. Trump must accommodate–or try to accommodate–these demands. Israel's influence is too great to ignore.
The Zionist master plan is simple: continue the break-up of the Arab (and Persian) worlds into smaller,
compliant, non-democratic autocracies or puny, fragmented religious orthodoxies. Sound crazy? Not at all. In Israel's mind, we're already most of the way there.
Starting soon after 911, Zio-Washington initiated a war that crushed Iraq and set back its culture,
economy and military capabilities decades. Ditto on Libya. Syria has also been severely damaged. This is all
good news to Israel. But the job of re-making the Middle East to Israel's liking remains unfinished. Assad's Syria (with Russian and Iranian help) is about to emerge–if not victorious–then intact, after
years of Zio-American meddling and covert warfare. Assad survives but Israel has not given up. Syria remains
weak.
Next step: using Washington's awesome military and intelligence capabilities, global Zionism is now
embarking on a campaign that will attempt to destabilize Iran without using US bombs or missiles. How?
Hundreds of millions of US dollars have just been earmarked to target Iran's existing regime through
propaganda, sabotage and subterfuge. The ongoing Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is about to hit an
even higher gear. This is another act of war against the people of Iran.
Yet no one seems to care. There's simply no discussion or dissent. It's simply Zio-America's next target. For the safety of Israel, Iran must fall.
Talk about direct interference in another country's sovereign affairs! What Zio-Washington is doing to
Iran makes 'Russiagate' look absolutely insignificant in comparison, even if every exaggerated assertion was
true. Yet no one protests.
Not the pundits. Not the politicians. Not even the anti-war Left. Either they're too frightened or
they're complicit.
Duplicity, dirty deeds, and double standards is how Zio-Washington rolls. And Israel wouldn't have it any other way.
Zionist power is simply too vast, too effective and too unrelenting to resist–even for a US President.
But Trump's objective to 'Make America Great Again' is up against Israel's presumption that it can direct US
policies to it liking. Can this marriage survive?
Can Trump serve two masters?
The inevitable clash ahead is why Trump is under so much media and political pressure. The Zions want to
keep him under pressure and off balance. Also, there is the simmering, embarrassing, unresolved matter of Palestine. The native goyim there are
still resisting. This fact too, is as astonishing as it is shameful.
The refusal of Israel to give back land, allow independence, and cut a deal that would allow Palestine
autonomy after decades of Israeli occupation and endless 'talks' speaks volumes about Israeli ruthlessness.
The 'Two State Solution' failed because Israel decided that it didn't want an independent and sovereign
Palestinian state. To the Israelis, the sad plight of the Palestinian people matters not.
And even Washington is not powerful enough to force Israel to return to the Palestinians the land that
the Jewish state snatched in its preemptive 1967 war. So the 'peace process' gradually died.
But as the talks dragged on, Israel expanded its borders, built Jewish settlements in Palestine, gained
greater militarily power, cultivated its regional influence (and power in Washington), and increased its
GDP.
Palestine on the other hand, achieved none of those things. Conditions have actually worsened. At this
point, all the Palestinians can do is hold on or surrender.
Meanwhile, it's clear that Israel's race-conscious majority want the native non-Jews out of the Jewish
State. This political 'value' can now be seen for what it is.
Can the torture of Palestine go on indefinitely?–or must Israel soon act ruthlessly and decisively?
One option is for the Jewish state to radically increase colonization of the Occupied Territories and
begin the forcible transfer of non-Jews into Jordan, Egypt or Syria.
Ironically, Meir Kahane's racist, reviled (but prophetic) proclamation (and book) 'They [the Arabs] Must
Go' has finally found its audience. Israel's 'national socialist' values are showing. Even Trump is being held hostage. Can Trump shake the Zionist monkey off his back?–or will he have to
obediently target all the usual bad guys: Iran, Hamas, Russia and Assad?
Israel orchestrates. Washington executes. And the sad story continues.
Trump is but another example of the Zionist control of the American government and Trumps pissing backwards
in his statements at the Helsinki news conference is the Zionist deep state in action for all the world to
see. Trump is a puppet of the Zionists who surround him and who hold the paper on his real estate house of
cards and so he does what he is told as the only other option is the JFK route and obviously he has made the
right choice for him but not for America.
Zionist control of American was proven on 911 when Israel and
the zionist deep state did 911 and got away with it and every thinking American knows they did it.
Trump has always been speaking out of both sides of his mouth, so his agreeing and disagreeing with the
"intelligence community" at the same time is all in a day's work for him. It seems to me that he is just
playing for time – he may of course still lose bigly in the end, but he has not yet conceded defeat.
"... (*) We say concealed, because it is becoming more and more the privileged method of the Empire to control and use for its own goals various rightist or leftist political currents and identities, inverting their original intentions and goals. Conspiracy and Deception were always formidable political tools. In our era, an era of unprecedented civilizational decline of Western Capitalism, they have become the main ones. That made it possible for America and the "Deep Finance" to use Tsipras and SYRIZA in Greece and that also made it possible for a politician so closely connected to the US and Israeli Neocons, as Donald Trump is, to deceive so many people and to present himself as a friend of Russia and an opponent of Wars, while in fact he was the guy entrusted with continuing the Neocon agenda in a more dangerous form, bringing into the equation also the nuclear card. ..."
We have witnessed during the last two years the multiplication of cases of political
repressions in various Eastern European countries, like Poland, where Mateusz Piscorski, leader
of the party Smena is detained illegally already for two years, without any
accusations formulated against him! But this is not the only authoritarian action of the Polish
authorities, which, by the way have been condemned by UN Human Rights Committee and by the
Polish Ombudsman (Rzecznik praw obywatelskich) for their actions. Among them the process
against the Polish Communist party, the harassment against the trotskyte group "Power to the
Councils", a pro-Palestinian conference and scientific conferences about Karl Marx! To all that
you may add the massive expulsion to the streets of impoverished tenants due to the
re-privatization process.
It seems that, for the Polish authorities, "Democracy" and "Freedom" were very good as
slogans against "Socialism" and the "Russians", but not so good to be really applied As for
Polish nationalism is of a very peculiar brand. Polish say for instance they are still angry
with the Soviet invasion to Poland in 1921 (after a failed Polish invasion of Soviet Russia!)
But they cannot explain why in the hell the leaders of this proud nation send their troops to
invade, occupy and destroy Iraq in 2003, along with US, Britain and Australia! It seems Iraq
cannot have the same right to national independence Poles claim for their country.
More to the South, in Moldova, an intellectual like Iurie Rosca, an internationally known
Moldovan is also persecuted by the authorities of the country. His real crime is that Rosca, a
militant for democracy since the Soviet times, remains a strong pro-independence and
pro-neutrality figure in a country NATO wants to include, as fast as possible.
More to the North, in the Baltic states, the so-called "Russian-speaking" huge minorities in
those states, of Russian, Ukrainian or Bielorussian origin, are the object of mass repressions
since the demise of the USSR. They are even deprived of their most fundamental political and
civic rights, with the complicity of European governments and EU institutions. In both Baltic
states and Ukraine, authorities do not object to the open celebration of the most terrible and
criminal Nazi or pro-Nazi figures as national heroes. (By the way one wonders why the World
Jewish Council and other similar organizations seem so little wondered by Nazi and anti-semitic
manifestations in this region, in particular by the Nazi activities in Ukraine. If something
like that happened anywhere else in the world, as a minimum they would ask for sanctions
against the powers which tolerate such manifestations or they would organize campaigns to
remove them from power!)
Except for the Baltic states and Ukraine, political persecutions did not take a massive
character and they don't need to take for the time being. Still those persecutions and the
general ideological climate (mostly anti-Russian and anti-Communist, sometimes clearly
pro-Nazi) are quite serious indications of the political project they want to serve.
Communists for instance or the Left are nearly inexistent in nearly all Eastern European
countries. Those repressions are not justified by any "Communist threat". As for Russia, it
dissolved, at its own initiative, both the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. To claim now it represents
a military threat for its ex-dominions it would be utterly ridiculous, if it was not very
dangerous. By the way, campaigns to persuade Europeans that Russia is a serious threat are
under way in all Europe, including Britain, Scandinavia or Germany, adapted to the particular
conditions and the level of consciousness in every European country. In Germany, in 2014, the
editor of Handelsblatt himself has compared the treatment of Russia by the local
media, with what German newspapers were writing in the beginning of WWI. It is clearly a
European wide project to present Moscow under the worse possible light.
Such media campaigns in History usually precede military campaigns, even if in the Russian
case it is not so simple. The aim here is not to counter a non-existent Russian threat but to
encircle, contain and provoke regime change in Russia and also undermine the relations between
Europe and Russia. By destroying the relations between Russia and Europe, you deny also to the
latter the means of its independence.
What the powers in place in Eastern Europe try to do by such repressive action is to
neutralize "pro-actively" any dissident voice, of the left or of the right, afraid that the
mere existence of any independent voice would harm their very ambitious plans. They are also
trying to begin shifting European ideology , from its old democratic values (even if often not
applied) to new authoritarian ones , something absolutely necessary for the attack of Capital
against popular classes and of Western Imperialism against Russia and other "outside enemies"
– targets. This is also essentially Trump's game: To use dissatisfaction from the
establishment policies to present a more authoritarian regime as an alternative.
Moldova: Encircling Russia from SE Europe
In Moldova, all economy and all politics and all power, except for the President of the
Republic, elected by direct vote, are controlled by one and only one Oligarch who was even
received officially in the US. Extreme corruption and exploitation of its people is the normal
state of affairs in this once rich land, turned into the poorest nation of Europe, after the
soviet collapse-suicide and the near to feudal neo-capitalist plundering of its resources, with
one third of its population emigrating abroad! NATO and the EU, as usual, pretend to fully
ignore the real situation in Moldova.
Moldova's Oligarch and the Western powers behind him are afraid now of the likelihood that,
in the next parliamentarian elections, the people of Moldova will overthrow their political
representatives. In the same time, Moldova is most probably one of the next targets of NATO on
its road to Moscow .
After destroying Yugoslavia , after launching a Debt War against Greece and Cyprus , after
provoking a bloody civil war in Ukraine , Western imperialism needs now to control Moldova, to
abolish whatever remains of its independence and neutrality and to turn it into a military
base, absolutely necessary for its war planning against Russia. Moldova , Serbia and FYROM are
the three remaining " holes " in the near complete chain of NATO protectorates now encircling
Russia from its South West, from the Adriatic to Donetsk, from the Mediterranean to
Hungary.
In reality, NATO is not doing anything different than what Hitler did, back in 1941,
spending precious time and his best military units to occupy Greece and control the Balkans
before launching the Barbarossa Operation. It is absolutely imperative for Western Imperialism
to control the Balkans and all of SE Europe before launching, if it will be able, its final
attack against Russia, an attack which may not take a ( notimpossible but rather
difficult) military form, but which can adopt other forms, such as geopolitical isolation and
threats, economic, financial and ideological war with the purpose of regime change, to return
this country to the status of Western vassal, as it was during the Yeltsin years, in alliance
with pro-Western forces inside Russia, probably more concealed that overt (*). In all possible
scenarios, the encirclement of Russia, the cutting of its access to the South , to the "Warm
Seas", is one of the principal strategic lines of attack of the West against Moscow, as it has
always been during the Soviet, but also during the Tsarist regime before the 1917 Revolution.
But now, the West is much more advanced as it is already waging war from positions like Kiev or
Caucasus, which belonged to the Russian Empire since centuries.
Hungary, Trump and the refugee crisis
Let us open a parenthesis at that point. Hungary is a very special case in Eastern-Central
Europe, as it pretends to be simultaneously a friend of Russia, of Trump and of Netanyahu! It
is only natural for Russia, attacked as it is from all sides, to see in Budapest a precious
ally and he is in some cases, when for example it supports Macedonian Slav nationalism thus
putting obstacles to the inclusion of FYROM into NATO. It is also rather normal for a power
like Russia to try to manoeuver exploiting serious contradictions inside imperialist centers
(Neocon-nationalists vs. Globalizers, Netanyahu against Soros, US Empire vs. Financial Empire).
The only problem is that, if the winds of the Western establishment are diverging in serious
problems, like Iran or the western political regime, they are absolutely united to their
hostility to Russia, even if some of those politicians try to portray themselves as friends of
Moscow. By the way that is not new. Even Hitler played in the past, rather successfully, this
game, before attacking Russia!
Returning to Hungary, the question is if Orban and similar regimes are or can be long-term
strategic allies of Russia. Especially in the context of the broader imperial game against
Moscow, of which the NATO expansion is only one, very important, but only one chapter.
We will see at the end of the day what all that game really means. Past historic experience,
but also the common anti-German, pro-US front of the Visegrád countries for decades is a
very strong indication of problems ahead. It is true that many people in Europe, even in
Germany, hate Merkel, Soros and globalization. Trump is using this dissatisfaction to create a
pro-US camp in Europe, with Poland and Hungary as its leaders. This does not seem the best
method to address the challenges put by Globalizers from the perspective of European
independence. (Greece is also such an example, with Tsipras counting on US and "Deep Finance"
support to counter Merkel. We have seen where all that led finally).
Hungary and its Eastern and Central European allies are now protesting against the refugees
who supposedly threaten them. But in reality it is not they who are threatened, the refugee
problem is serious and it is mainly affecting South and not Eastern European countries.
By attacking refugees, Eastern European states are constructing a very convenient outside
enemy, whose utility is first to help Trump against Europe, second to solidify an authoritarian
ideology at home, and third , to facilitate new Western wars against Islam.
It is very indicative the fact that both sides of the debate in Europe (pro- and
anti-immigrant/refugee) are hardly saying one word about the main root cause of the refugee
crisis, Western direct or by proxy interventions and the wars they provoked in the Middle East.
That means they are not so much interested in addressing the refugee crisis, they are
interested in using it.
The Dialectics of the Refugee Crisis
" Neocon – Nationalists " (the Huntington party) seem to be bitter enemies of Soros
and the Fukuyama type " Globalizers " and they are indeed regarding many questions. Still they
agree on the main, Western and Financial Domination in the world, they are seriously divided as
far as the means to impose it are concerned.
By the way, one gets often the impression of a kind of an objective division of labor
between those two camps. Neocons helped produce the refugees in the first place, by launching
the wars in the Middle East. Then, by greatly facilitating the massive transfer of refugees to
Europe, Soros-minded politicians and NGO's, tried to facilitate the implementation of their
totalitarian dream of destroying nations, states and every human identity, religion or
ideology, potentially able to resist the world domination of Financial Capital and the
institutions it is controlling, like the EU.
By doing that, they helped create the adverse reaction, which, instead of provoking a
backlash against the Wars, it is destined to fuel new ones! You bomb Libya, you create refugees
and then you use them to impose political regimes which are more convenient for new wars! Just
fine.
US vs. Europe
We must not forget also that all Eastern European elites, including the Hungarian one, were
formed by the Americans and some of their allies after the fall of the soviet regime and they
are structurally anti-Russian and against European independence from the US, even if, in some
rare cases, they can pretend to be friends of Russia. Eastern Europe, the "New Europe" of
Ramsfeld and the Neocons, stubbed in the back France, Germany and Russia, which were opposing
the war in Iraq in 2003, the same war which initiated the chain of Middle Eastern wars
responsible for the refugee crisis they are now protesting against!
Again on what is Trump
As for Mr. Trump, it is becoming really tiring to have to repeat, in 2018, already obvious
facts. The US President, examined on the basis of what he does, not what he says, on the basis
of the real record of his administration, on the basis of the fact that now Neocons in
Geopolitics and Goldman Sachs in economics are ruling Washington as never before, is nothing
else than the main tool for the reappearance of the main Neocon project, albeit in a much
expanded, multi-faceted and nuclear version. This program could not reappear by normal
political ways, so it reappeared as a result of a huge and complicated conspiracy to elect and
control Mr. Trump . Obama did not stop the Neocon policies, but he contained the more dangerous
manifestations of them, like war against Iran, a new, Iraqi-style invasion of Syria, or
providing Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons, as the present administration is already
doing, or in moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem.
Mr. Trump makes everything to persuade us he is mad and he probably is, I am not a
psychiatrist to make a diagnosis. But his policy is not mad at all. It is following, on the
contrary, an Iron Logic, the logic of Yinon, of Huntington, of the Wars of Civilizations, of
the New American Century, of Neocons, of Cheney, albeit adapted to the new international
situation. Here we are facing again nothing else than the centuries old phenomenon of Western
Imperialism, projected by both Western superpowers, the Empire of Finance and the US Empire, in
its more clear, more aggressive and more extremist form.
Regime Change in the West: Precondition for War
Most political and military leaders hate the fact that, always, even after the discovery of
Nuclear Weapons, War remains the continuation of politics with other means, as Clausewitz put
it. They like the fact that they can use their military means to implement their political
goals. But they don't like the fact they have to persuade their citizens and foreign opinion
for what they are doing. If they use their weapons without some form of consent, they will pay
a huge cost.
Without a political regime like Hitler's in Germany, without the enormous support he
commanded among German people (De Gaulle stated that no other people in History has supported
so much its leaders), all the technical and military means of the world would not permit the
Barbarossa Operation. (Let me clarify at that point that this is not an anti-German comment. It
is true that Germans committed horrendous crimes, for which there is no whatever justification.
But at least one can say they were pushed into committing them by the social disaster and the
national humiliation they suffered after WWII and the 1929 crisis. But there was no military
reason for levelling the German industrial, workers towns, or Nagasaki in Japan. Nowadays
Americans lack even such a pseudo-justification for what they are doing or threaten to do all
around the world. Nobody has invaded or plans to invade the United States, nobody has imposed
its catastrophic economic diktats to them.)
By the way it was exactly the will and capacity of Hitler's regime to attack Soviet Russia,
which made it acceptable to large sections of the German and Western establishment and
facilitated its ascension to power. As for his attack against Russia, it was not a mistake. It
was his aim and the logic of his project from the very beginning. But of course he had to hide
it in order to realize it.
We understand that some of our readers, accustomed to many decades of peace in Europe, may
be skeptical about this kind of reasoning. We should remind them that European history is full
of such abrupt changes from War to Peace and from Peace to War. It happened before, it can
happen again. By the way, it is already happening in modern Europe. It has happened in
Yugoslavia, it is happening in Ukraine, it is happening even in Greece, but by economic, not
military means. But mainly, the new Cold War is already and in many aspects the dominating
reality in nowadays Europe. It is War, even if it is not using the classical military
means.
To push further this War, to encircle and strangle Russia, Western Imperialism and its
military tool, NATO have now and "pro-actively" to silence any dissenting voice in Eastern
Europe, from the right or from the left, which may become tomorrow poles of resistance. They
have, through their repression, to teach to all potential dissidents the huge risks they will
assume if they express their disagreements.
They need also to persuade European nations that any resistance to their plans is futile and
they have nothing else to do than surrender and try to survive as best as they can. In the
beginning of the decade we had the transformation of Greece from a more or less usual Western
parliamentarian state into a Debt Colony , the Greek experiment and the Greek paradigm . The
2015 betrayal of the Greek people by its own leaders came to support the conclusion of futility
of any resistance, in a way even a military defeat would not do.
Now, Poland seems to have been chosen as the New Authoritarian paradigm, with clear
proto-Fascist elements, right and pro-US. The historic mission, the function of this new-old
Authoritarianism is to attack social rights and their force in both Eastern and Western Europe.
By doing that, they promote neoliberalism inside all of Europe, while creating the necessary
political and social conditions to facilitate the wars they plan against external threats
(Russia, Islam-Iran, Global South like Venezuela, China).
This is why we are witnessing such a definite turn to clearly authoritarian methods also in
Western and Central Europe, where special legislation is introduced everywhere, invoking the
need to "fight terrorism", which is in many cases a result of western services activities and,
in all cases, a result of Western interventions. This special legislation is not so much
addressed against terrorists but it aims in reality political dissenters, independent
intellectuals and social movements. To organize war against the East, it was always necessary
to suppress democracy, political dissent and social movements in the West. (This was also the
reason Mc Carthyism has been developed in the USA during the previous Cold War. It was
necessary to prepare USA for the War with USSR).
Note
(*) We say concealed, because it is becoming more and more the privileged method of the
Empire to control and use for its own goals various rightist or leftist political currents and
identities, inverting their original intentions and goals. Conspiracy and Deception were always
formidable political tools. In our era, an era of unprecedented civilizational decline of
Western Capitalism, they have become the main ones. That made it possible for America and the
"Deep Finance" to use Tsipras and SYRIZA in Greece and that also made it possible for a
politician so closely connected to the US and Israeli Neocons, as Donald Trump is, to deceive
so many people and to present himself as a friend of Russia and an opponent of Wars, while in
fact he was the guy entrusted with continuing the Neocon agenda in a more dangerous form,
bringing into the equation also the nuclear card.
So Boyd D. Cathey
claims that the main reason of anti-russian hysteria is that Russia represents an obstacle to
establishing global US domninance -- a global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post ..."
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
"... as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality. ..."
Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes)
adopted
new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere
in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically
placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter
or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.
The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the
American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any
standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.
That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the
contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist
Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable
attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP
mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the
question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained
the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.
One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of
and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of
these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the
pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who
could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy
theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top
legislation.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the
Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the
center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The
Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary
Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .
Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media.
Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the
Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or
disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was
head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad
nauseum ).
Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder,
the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President
Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big
time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip
Giraldi and Robert
Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir
Putin.
For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if
nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even
arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.
Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives
descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the
pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin
and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and
apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until
Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially
translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the
commentary
]
Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is
a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and
those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish
persecution for the Neocons.
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and
homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The
End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously
in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants
from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle
"holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert
national traditions and Christian identity;
for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia
seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox
Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time"
religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and
"extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and
equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board
equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast
as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic
considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and
Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the
nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's
important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them
Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its
president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!
Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining
international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one
of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped
"has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has,
understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or
in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the
largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring
nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time
allies such as Syria.
Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors
and allies?
More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic
terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the
horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has
offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror,
but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz
during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your
assistance or intel." And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston
bombing) were not received.
But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today,
and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not
received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage
and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria
we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.
"... Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians ..."
"... Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets, undercutting our Ruling Class's cut. ..."
"... Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. ..."
"... as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela ..."
"... The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external
aggressor.
2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians .
3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't
just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an
end-of-life crisis.
4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets,
undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.
5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative.
Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back
when Russia started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi
Arabia is much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being
critical in such a case would be waycist.
With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs
non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country
with those of the US as an Empire.
It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship
with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex
international problems.
However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela .
The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational,
more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being
destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.
"... The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such edict from the naked Emperor in D.C. ..."
"... Rusal will be one of the main beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned. ..."
"... Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade and reserves. ..."
"... But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people will naturally shift away from it. ..."
"... Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks like this. ..."
"... The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the planet. ..."
"... True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated regularly. ..."
"... The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely. ..."
"... The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the economic noose. ..."
"... What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn, requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment. ..."
Looking at the unfolding trade war between Donald Trump and the world the phrase that should
come to mind is "One good turn deserves another."
In the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum giant, Rusal,
back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will respond to future
events.
In yesterday's Treasury International Capital (TIC) report, we saw clearly that Russia
activated its nearly $100 billion in U.S. Treasury debt to buy dollars in April.
More than $47 billion in U.S. debt was dumped into the market to cover the chaos engendered
by Trump's overnight diktat for the world to stop doing business with Rusal.
Also of note, U.S. ally Japan continues to shed Treasuries at around 8-10 billion per month.
Ireland dumped $17 billion and Luxembourg nearly $8 billion.
While China dropped $5 billion this is noise, ultimately as its holdings of U.S. debt have
been stable for over a year now. What is interesting is Belgium, the home of Euroclear, seeing
a $12 billion inflow. Likely that's where some of the Russian-held debt was traded to.
The Russians likely sold from their balance on reserve with the Federal Reserve. Here's the
latest iteration of the chart I keep for just such an occasion.
Rusal's shares and bonds went bidless but the damage wasn't contained there as major
Russian banks like VTB and Sberbank were hit hard as well. So, while Rusal didn't have much
in the way of dollar-denominated debt. It did have major dollar-related obligations as accounts
receivable on its balance sheet because of the sheer size of its trade conducted in
dollars.
And that's why there was such an outflow from Russia's stock of Treasuries. But, here's the
thing. It didn't matter one whit. Why? It didn't undermine Russia's Foreign Exchange
Reserves.
No Dip in Russia's Foreign Exchange Reserves During Rusal Crisis
Russia just sold Treasuries into the market, raised dollars and swapped out Rusal's bonds,
holding them as collateral for a Repo.
The Bank of Russia Intervened to keep Rusal and Other Banks Solvent by Dumping U.S.
Treasuries
This mass dumping of U.S. debt caused the long end of the U.S. yield curve to blow out past
significant resistance points, like the 10 year pushing above 3.05% in sympathy with the Fed's
policy to dry up dollar liquidity. If this first-order analysis by Zerohedge is correct, then
we can assume Russia has been holding a lot of long-dated Treasuries versus say China which we
know has shortened up the average maturity of their massive bond portfolio.
In times past we may have not seen such a massive dump of U.S. debt by Russia. They may have
simply sold dollars directly or swapped euros or yuan for them. But, these are different times.
Trump has taken the use of sanctions to a level that hasn't been seen before.
Putin is the master of parallel aggression. You take an action against Russia, he will
generally hit you back along some other vector.
In this case it was a direct confrontation to Trump's bringing the full weight of U.S.
financial dominance down on its rivals and allies, who are all heavily exposed to
Rusal's market position.
Russia is not out of the water with this situation which is why Oleg Deripaska, the majority
owner of Rusal and the one targeted by the Trump administration, is looking still to find ways
to satisfy the U.S.'s demands on this issue.
Putin's Pivot
But, don't think this isn't working to Putin's advantage as Deripaska is not one of his
supposed favored oligarchs. This report from Bloomberg spelled out the situation well back in
April.
As for Deripaska, he will get help from the Russian government again. {which he did, see
above} Rusal has warned that the sanctions might mean a default on a portion of its debt.
That's most likely to happen to its more than $1 billion in dollar-denominated debt. But, as
ever, the company's biggest creditors are Russian state banks, and the Kremlin will keep
Rusal solvent one way or another as it reorients toward Asian markets. It won't be a huge
headache for Putin: He's seen worse, including with Rusal during the financial crisis.
And that's the most important part.
Once the current positions are wound down and the aluminum market adjusts to the new reality
of U.S. hyper-aggression to restart an industry we really don't need (smelting aluminum?
really?) just to satisfy Trump's outdated views on trade (which they are MAGA-pedes) Rusal's
business will not be so U.S.-centric.
And therefore the world will become less exposed, over time, to the depredations of U.S.
financial attack. I told you before that China has responded to this by issuing new
yuan-denominated futures contracts for industrial metals.
Why do you think they did that?
Will it create pain in the short-term? Yes. Europe will experience even more of this as will
Asia.
Will a lot of companies fear being sanctioned and fined by the U.S. for doing business with
Rusal? Yes. It's happening now. Will this exacerbate underlying economic conditions in Europe?
Of course.
But, if Deripaska submits, like it looks like he will, then the aluminum market will calm
down and Trump's sanctions will look silly.
Sanctions Bite Both Ways
The net result will be more of the aluminum market will flow through the Yuan rather than
the dollar, neatly avoiding sanctions and any future threats. Because with the insanity caused
by the overnight chaos in April, any aluminum supplier/consumer will be wary of another such
edict from the naked Emperor in D.C.
And, as such, they will diversify the currencies they buy and sell aluminum in. It won't be
a sea change overnight. Those least exposed will jump ship first. Rusal will be one of the main
beneficiaries since Russian banks are already sanctioned.
But it will be a trend, that once started will gain steam.
China can and will tie convertibility of its futures contracts to gold through the Shanghai
exchange to allay worries about getting money out of the country.
Abusing your customers is never a winning marketplace strategy and that's exactly what
Trump's sanctions policy is doing, abusing customers of the dollar. Trust has been the dollar's
strongest attribute for a long time now and it is the primary reason why it has dominated trade
and reserves.
But there is a limit to how much your customers will take. And Trump is pushing well beyond
that limit. And when the benefits of using the dollar are eclipsed by the liabilities, people
will naturally shift away from it.
Look at the TIC chart above and note the total. This is a $6.3 trillion synthetic short
position against the dollar. He's inviting countries to dump treasuries to defend their
currencies as the dollar strengthens while shifting their primary materials buying to the
biggest rival's currency.
This is why Russia continues to run a very tight financial ship while it leads the charge
away from the dollar. It's inviting customers into the ruble with both a strong national
balance sheet and relatively higher interest rates. This has the U.S. fuming.
Putin has and will use future mini-crises like this to further clean up the rot left over
from the Yeltsin years, like Deripaska, while building a Russia insulated from future attacks
like this.
Remember, even the U.S. has limits. It cannot sanction people for refusing to trade in
dollars. Even the U.S. doesn't have that power. It can try but it will fail. New systems, new
banks, new institutions can always be created.
... " ... in the case of the insane sanctions on Oleg Deripaska and Russian Aluminum
giant, Rusal, back in April, we finally got some clarity as to how Russia can and will
respond to future events .. . " ...
... most recently, Trump had been focusing on protecting steel and "aluminum" on world
trading ... could there be an underlying reason behind these sanctions? ... who is Trump
really protecting here? ...
... let's follow the money ... these links might let us connect the (((dots))) ...
Should the London Metal Exchange allow Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Glencore to own
aluminium warehouses even as they trade the metal?
GOLDMAN'S NEW MONEY MACHINE: WAREHOUSES ) ...
The struggle for most Americans regarding this issue is the fact that the Ministry of
Truth has always told us "Russia Bad!" while "US Good!". The Ole good guy vs bad guy
paradigm. I grew up in the 80's and am very familiar with that paradigm. I am an American through
and through but our government has become the most corrupt bunch of whoring thieves on the
planet.
True Americans have awakened to realize the power of our corrupt government lies in
the dollar hegemony. True Americans hate it, and hate the power and control it wields in our
own lives. We see it at work around the world. We see DC squeeze our lives to subsidize it's
world empire. An empire is seeks to maintain for various reasons that are debated
regularly.
The rub comes when we see that the only force capable of standing up to this corrupt
empire is a country that we have been told all our lives is evil. Russia wasn't always the
communist soviet union.....and is no longer that today. But in the minds of many Americans
that is all that it will ever be. Russia has the resources, military, intelligence, and skill
to control it's own destiny. It has everything it needs to tell the US empire, "No!" I
respect that....admire that.....cheer that....and wish them success in their stand. For those
of us looking for a way to bust the evil cabal now running our own country, Russia's
rebellion of US dominance is a ray of hope. It's not that we don't love our own country or
want to be Russians, but we don't care about supporting a world empire that requires wars,
taxes, and a strategy that strip us of our individual sovereignty by contaminating our
country with people that don't belong here and will never think like an American.
People need to put aside their "fan-boy" biases, drop the blind loyalty, and start dealing
with reality. We are not rooting for Putin and Russia, rather we are rooting for the downfall
of thus evil banking cartel that is slowly killing us all and taking more and more of our
freedoms. To those of you that say that will cause pain and we STILL have the greatest
country on earth, I say, somethings are worth the pain.....and we can be a lot better. We
have got to change direction....and the sooner we get off this road of empire destruction,
the better.
Maybe it is because The Aluminum Company of America (formerly ALCOA now Arconic an others)
is going broke. Check out their stock price for the last 10 years or so. Are they still part
of the DOW Index? Bonehead move to include them years ago.
Trump is worth what, a couple of billion? And those assets are encumbered by a lot of debt
held by US banks. That does not an oligarch make. When it comes to US oligarchs, Trump is a
piker compared to the massive family trusts that can move markets and voting results.
Trump is worth exactly the debt that the Israeli Sheldon Adelson holds over him IIRC. Far from being independent he is owned by America's biggest parasite and enemy:
Israel.
The USA is drunk on power with their dollar as they see it as invincible. It will be their
own undoing. The world is eager and preparing to drop/run/destroy the dollar. One day they'll all lick
their wounds take their losses and forget the dollar completely.
The USA and Israel aka banksters will start WWIII to prove literally they will destroy the
world if need be instead of lose their power over mankind
The US will have to do one of the hardest things in the history of the nation. She'll have
to stop LYING to herself! All those recommending weaponization of the petrodollar, are
charlatans. The USA cannot get through restructuring via antagonism, that only tightens the
economic noose.
What is needed, is bankruptcy protection, via honest cooperation with the emergent
economic powers in the East. This comes with a price, retrenchment of imperium. This in turn,
requires sobriety that, the game while not completely lost, as in national decomposition, is
nevertheless, unwinnable, as in rebuilding can only follow retrenchment.
Now, US policy wonks must be imbibing some real potent hallucinogens, to be unable to see
what's right in front of their noses that, no matter the strategy, if it's not one of
cooperation, the game is forfeit! The only strategy that helps the US retain great power
status, is one whereby clear eyed, hard nosed assessment of assets and liabilities, are
carried out.
The East is helping the USA buy time, the exceptionalists are once again, squandering the
opportunity, just like they did in 91. They somehow believe the US military can change the
trajectory of events. This is not possible any longer except humanity signs up for
civilizational extinction.
To cut a long story short, it's time to declare mea culpa, and request a recalibration of
goals, objectives, tactics, and critically, strategy. The strategy going forward? Honest
cooperation to resolve issues that are creating global tensions, foremost amongst them, the
one where the West gets to live like kings, at the expense of billions. This is the major
issue, and it cannot be resolved without humility on the part of the West, and indemnity on
the part of victims.
Humanity will only move forward through forgiveness, which cannot be activated without
contrition.
If Russia is selling Treasuries, it may be ahead of the market selling to prevent losses
down the road. There is a shift happening not just with Russia as the long-standing bankers
like the Rothschilds, etc. have been also selling their UST holdings and moving the money to
Asia as per their reports for the last year.
The other thing to watch is the Vienna OPEC meeting later this month. The Saudis and
Russia have now setup a long-term partnership to control the Oil market, including
speculation on the markets as of today's press, so a discussion of abandoning the Petrodollar
may not be off the table as there are portions of that deal that have been announced as
secretive and this may be part of the plan.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without
interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed
by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because
that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany,
Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and
contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been
added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push.
Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German
world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement
between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such
an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases,
nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in
Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always
backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change
that.
Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they
get weaker over time.
There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is
possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad
dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming
more united in the process.
Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty
of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.
And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether
this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).
On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that
they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then
Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate.
Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.
The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to
go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be
militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for
billions of dollars).
Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer
dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive
co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with
"historic enemy" Russia?
There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases
on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are
under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.
"... They have virtually given up on the political channels even through intermediaries like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military balance/confrontation. ..."
I just listened to Lavrov's interview with the BBC. Early on, when asked how he responds to
waking up to a tweet that tells Russia to get ready for those nice new cruise missiles, Lavrov
responds by distinguishing between the tweets and the dialogue between military leaders. Lavrov
makes clear they only treat the dialogue with the military leadership seriously.
To me, while stated very subtly, this marks a profound shift in how Russia will interact
with the US. They have virtually given up on the political channels even through
intermediaries like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military
balance/confrontation.
See BBC
interview . One really good sarcasm from Lavrov. Sergey Lavrov comperating UK beahviour with
the famous Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland episode in order to describe the new western
'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a
masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse.
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said "highly likely" as a new invention of the British diplomacy to
describe why they punish people – because these people are highly likely guilty, like in
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll - when he described a trial. And when they discovered that
the jury could be engaged, then the King said "Let's ask the jury" and the Queen shouted "No
jury! Sentence first – verdict afterwards." That's the logic of "highly likely".
Question: Have you got one shred, shred of evidence to suggest British intelligence tried to
kill Sergei Skripal?
Sergey Lavrov: There is an old Roman criteria "who is to benefit". The UK is grossly
benefiting from the provocations both in Syria and in the United Kingdom itself.
Sergey Lavrov: That's a problem. First, the A-234 agent in highly pure form in high concentration is already raising
suspicions.
Question: It came from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, you invented that.
Sergey Lavrov: Stephen, you are not factual. You may be hard talking, but you are not listening. This chemical substance
indeed was invented in the Soviet Union, then one the inventors fled to the United States and made the formula public. And if you
want to check before raising the issue, please do so, the United States patented this formula; and it was formally taken by United
States special services or the army, I don't remember. But A-234 is a very light, I mean, it seriously damages a person, kills him
of her, but it evaporates very fast; and the sample taken two weeks after the event cannot, according to our scientists, contain
very high concentration.
Sergey Lavrov: For a Brit, you have very bad manners. The Swiss laboratory report also said that, and in the first place, they
found BZ, which was I think invented in the United States in 1955 and was among the equipment of the US and UK army. And we asked
OPCW, whom we trust, whether this is true or not that in addition to A-234 there was also BZ discovered. And we are waiting a
reply of OPCW, whom, of course, we trust, but we want to trust and verify.
Notable quotes:
"... Sergey Lavrov analogising from Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland in order to describe the new western 'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by all...what a masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international discourse. ..."
I just listened to Lavrov's interview with the BBC. Early on, when asked how he responds to
waking up to a tweet that tells Russia to get ready for those nice new cruise missiles, Lavrov
responds by distinguishing between the tweets and the dialogue between military leaders. Lavrov
makes clear they only treat the dialogue with the military leadership seriously.
To me, while stated very subtly, this marks a profound shift in how Russia will interact
with the US. They have virtually given up on the political channels even through intermediaries
like the EU). The only relationship left is that of military balance/confrontation.
Wouldn't be surprised to discover it was an Aussie 'fixer' behind the hold up of the OPCW
inspection team, Australia has been pretty much 100% compliant since being regime changed in
1974.
...
Your greatest friend, most staunch ally tells you the truth despite what may come. Sergey Lavrov analogising from Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland in order to describe the new
western 'weird logic' of 'Sentence First, Verdict After' has to be watched repeatedly by
all...what a masterful HardTalk show...exposing the new bench mark in western international
discourse.
The logic of 'highly likely.' No proof required.
Such honesty, what a friend... and the correct book to quote too...given the current ocean
of media backed fantasy.
Lavrov is truly a class act. Intelligent, well read, humorous. He, and a very few like
him, are all that's standing between us and oblivion.
@Madmax2 87
I agree that Australia with Turnbull and Bishop - especially the latter - in control is
100% onboard with the Deep State narrative - one just has to listen to the ABC to know
that.
But since 1974? For all his faults, Fraser would have been opposed to what the US is
doing. As Gough said, long after Fraser left office, "Malcolm is a much improved person."
Fraser did much to assist in dismantling apartheid in South Africa and wrote a book espousing
an independent foreign policy for Australia.
@Madmax2 87
I agree that Australia with Turnbull and Bishop - especially the latter - in control is
100% onboard with the Deep State narrative - one just has to listen to the ABC to know
that.
But since 1974? For all his faults, Fraser would have been opposed to what the US is
doing. As Gough said, long after Fraser left office, "Malcolm is a much improved person."
Fraser did much to assist in dismantling apartheid in South Africa and wrote a book espousing
an independent foreign policy for Australia. /div
"... what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated above.. ..."
"... The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of Europe." ..."
"... Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada. ..."
"... As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the leaders of the old Soviet Union. ..."
"... The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive fools. ..."
Not only was there a pledge to halt any eastward expansion of NATO. It was clearly
understood that Ukraine would be a permanent buffer state between NATO and Russian borders.
During the early days of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. launched the Partnership for
Peace, which was presented as an alternative to NATO expansion. Russia was promised membership
in the new security structure.
While some American officials, including military flag officers, called for the dismantling
of NATO at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, others argued that
NATO had an important mission: To assure that there was no new outbreak of war on the European
continent. NATO was the only treaty organization under which the United States maintained a
presence in Europe. There was legitimate concern that, after two world wars in the 20th century
broke out in Europe, it was appropriate to maintain a watchful eye that no new conflict erupted
among the contending European states. Given the Balkan Wars of the early 1990s, this was not an
outlandish concern. Ultimately, according to the logic of those promoting a continuation of
NATO, Russia could be incorporated in a new security architecture. In effect, under a revived
American-Russian cooperation, war in Europe would be a permanent thing of the past.
This narrative may seem absurd by today's circumstances. But there is now a growing body of
declassified documents that confirm that there was a gentlemen's agreement that there would be
no further eastward expansion of NATO, and that the Partnership for Peace would be the anchor
of a new Eurasian security architecture to prevent the outbreak of future wars, and to build
new cooperative relations in the economic and political spheres as well.
The National Security Archive, hosted at George Washington University ([email protected])
has recently obtained and posted a number of documents from U.S. and Russian files from the
early 1990s, recounting this story. They can be found under the headline "NATO Expansion: What
Yeltsin Heard." They are well-worth reading for anyone looking for a way out of the current
madness New Cold War rhetoric coming from Washington, Berlin, London, Paris and Moscow.
"... there is now a growing body of declassified documents that confirm that there was a
gentlemen's agreement that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO..."
Harper, Thanks very much for posting this piece. Somehow, I always thought (probably
naively), that the agreement was always a well known fact. I often wondered why our esteemed
leaders broke it. Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?
thanks harper.. this "gentlemen's agreement" story seems to rear it's ugly head every so
often.. as an outsider it would seem to me that there has been an ongoing concerted effort to
not let any friendly relationships between russia and the rest of europe develop.. i can only
think that this has been the intent of nato, especially since the changes in the russia from
89 onward...
what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign
policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to
go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as
well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all
levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries
since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated
above..
Harper, this has been the lonely argument of Harald Kujak and a select few public others for
a longtime over here in Germany.
Yesterday I witnessed a debate under the header: Who is more dangerous Trump or Putin? on
German TeVe.
The British representative invited, the expert on British intelligence, argued he couldn't
understand in the least the German public. Seems 'poll wise' the vast majority of Germans
considers Trump more dangerous then Putin. There were phases in his talk were he seemed to
get exhausted and tried to address us more directly via our conscience/soul: We have to stand
up bold against Russian aggression, since it does not necessarily mean war, but if you do it
in a united fashion the other side will fold.
Meanwhile on another public channel a day earlier, second vs. first, a prominent German
economist seemingly joined Trump*. Strictly this is only to
Strictly it was part of the promotion of his latest book, something in like in search of
the truth. As economist he is obviously aware of matters that lately were alluded to here via
OECD. In fact it was the context of the first question to him.
*****
concerning European foreign policy, by now it feels the east dictates it to a large extend,
led by Poland.
I seem to remember that Yeltsin specifically asked that Russia be allowed to join NATO and
was turned down. The creation of an alternate organization was suggested, probably the
Partnership for Peace.
I was unaware of the "gentlemen's agreement," but it makes sense, and Matlock's testimony is
good enough for me. NATO was a cold war construct, and with the end of the cold war, NATO
could have been dismantled as the relic of a previous age. But institutions die hard and
those vested in them seek to maintain their budgets and find new missions to justify their
existence. European countries have indeed had a long history of conflict, and the alliance
did seem effective at maintaining the peace in Europe. Many of the new post-Communist
governments in the former Soviet Bloc also wanted in. It wasn't all our own doing.
The Partnership for Peace was another post-cold-war construct that gave the old school in
Garmish a new mission and something else to do. I think it might have been possible to bring
Russia in, but was that the purpose of an expanded NATO and the Partnership for Peace, or was
it aimed at isolating Russia and ensuring a perpetual western domination?
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine seems to have been the tipping point Did we play a
clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then came Putin's
assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine. And here we are,
witnessing the revival of populist nationalisms in many places, including the USA.
These pose a challenge to the post-cold-war "new world order" (I'm citing President #41)
which likely will be less and less pretty as it gains momentum. It might have been easier to
have abided by that "gentleman's agreement," and the issues we face to day might have been
avoided. But then there would have been other issues. We are humans after all and seem to
like "issues."
"...what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on
all levels?"
The non-obedient leaders of such countries in the "rest of Europe" would have been
compromised and removed from the positions of power by the deciders. Take a closer look at
May, Johnson, and, particularly, Gavin Williamson. Do they look like the persons of integrity
and able leaders? Was not Macron competitor conveniently (and fraudulently) compromised
during the last elections? Were not the Swedes ordered to keep the ridiculous lawsuit against
Assange?
The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic
individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and
pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of
Europe."
"Did we play a clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then
came Putin's assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine."
Why don't you do some minor research on the "clandestine role?' The materials are in
abundance and are widely available on the internet.
For example:
There has been innumerous stories circulating about the West's broken promises towards
Russia. To be honest I thought most of them was fake and the russians were making them up to
to ease their pain felt about the loss of an empire.
Now based on the above the opposite seems to be true.
I just dont come to understand at all how can a once superpower with 1000s of nuclear
warheads can downplayed for decades. I just don't get it.
The ignorant western elite should heed the old szekler saying: "The bear is not a
toy!"
Yes, a very worthwhile reminder, thanks. It should be run every day on the front page of
major news outlets for the next year. Ignorance of NATO's failure to sustain that accord
becomes a Pandora's box of bear-filled nightmares.
"Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?"
Your question provides the answer. The US and NATO aimed for a Russian government run by
natural resource-vending oligarchs. China would have been raised from its understudy role to
serve as an excuse for big ticket military spending.
Anna
@11
...The deciders have been weeding out ...that is very important observation. The other half
of that sentence is ´..who is weeded in..´ for example, in Germany, the current
new government has a social democrat at minister of finance, but he nominated a guy from
Goldman Sachs - Jörg Kukies. What more can be said?
I remember some bigwig, I want to say Scowcroft but can't really remember, said the reason
Russia wasn't allowed in to NATO is that they would be an alternate power centre to the US
within NATO. NATO is really there to assert US primacy over Europe. The Russia nonsense keeps
Europe divided and under the thumb, reconciliation between Germany and Russia is an abiding
fear for some.
NATO expansion was largely the result of extensive lobbying of the US Senate by American
arms and manufacturers in the 1990s, exposed by the New York Times at the time, as well as
for domestic political reasons to make Clinton look tough. Now it has all become a self
fulfilling prophesy by creating an adversary in Russia.
Prior to the 'Briefing Book' to which 'Harper' linked, the National Security Archive
published, last December, one entitled 'NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.'
A crucial point not mentioned in the -- generally excellent -- introduction to this series
of documents is that Gorbachev did not even ask for the verbal assurances he was given to be
put in writing.
This, incidentally, is a matter which Putin raised in his interviews with Oliver Stone. In
these, his comments on almost all the people discussed -- up to and including John McCain --
are restrained and emollient. His contempt and distaste for Gorbachev, however, shine
through.
Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was
getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from
Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada.
In a letter to the 'New York Times' in December 1987, in response to a column by William
Safire, which was headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', Arbatov made clear that
Gorbachev was intended to, as it were, 'walk away', from the Cold War. And he wrote:
'And here we have a "secret weapon'" that will work almost regardless of the American
response -- we 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?'
As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the
security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet
Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The
seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the
leaders of the old Soviet Union.
The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive
fools.
What however then becomes material is that if Western behaviour makes clear that those who
sought good relations with us were indeed such, it really is very foolish to expect that
Russians will vote for such people.
Something that saddens me somewhat is that, as became clear if one probed, a strong
undercurrent in the thinking of people like Arbatov was the belief that, although this had
not been Stalin's intention, his post-war policies had gratuitously wrecked the relationship
with the United States built up during the wartime 'Grand Alliance.'
I have difficulty thinking of any more promising way causing people to abandon such
beliefs than allying with those who venerate Stepan Banderistas in an attempt to bring the
Crimea into NATO. One thought people might be aware that Sevastopol is the scene of two great
sieges, by the French, Ottomans and British in 1854-5, and by the Germans, Romanians and
Italians from December 1941 to July 1942.
In both cases, the city fell. In the latter, however, the defenders tied up Erich von
Manstein -- one of the greatest exponents of mobile warfare -- and the German Eleventh Army
for seven crucial months, which among other things made a major contribution to the fact that
Stalingrad did not fall, and the Germans were decisively defeated there.
I am certainly aware of the role that Nuland and the State Department and the Obama
administration in general played in supporting the Orange Revolution. What I don't know is
what "clandestine" efforts--cash payments, secret promises, etc.--other elements of our
government may or may not have played. I suspect we did, but I don't know and for this, open
research is difficult to conduct.
anna - we see this much the same.. this is an organized move on the part of the west to
isolate Russia... i don't think it is working.. they have resorted to dirty tricks to get the
same result.. it isn't working either..
Now that matters are heating up in Europe-Russia relations, strictly along the lines of the
representative in the political talksshow circle, I talked about above, was Prof. Glees, he
speaks German has a semi-German background. Apparently was more frequently present on German
media, got glimpses. DW? Didn't take a closer look.
Strictly two of his arguments stuck out for me. One challenged how it would be challenged
here, Iraq, anyway:
a) it is no doubt significant that it only happened 7 km/?miles? from Porton Down. What
was he doing there?
b) if the Foreign Minister speaks he has relevant intelligence information.
Anna, re #11. There is very little 'weeding out from positions of influence' as you suggest.
The political preselection process ensures that such people do not actually get started on
the train, but in most cases they have already left as soon as they arrived, having seen, to
them, the nauseous and noxious collection of people with whom they would otherwise spend
years rubbing shoulders.
You will not find a Teddy Roosevelt or a George Washington in the current era.
I think you are underestimating the demand side of NATO expansion; many Eastern European
states wanted to be included in NATO - for reasons of both security and prestige (of being
associated with the dominant civilization on Earth and the Winners of the Cold War). In fact,
EU membership, NATO, and Plato went together - it was an act of joining (or re-joining) the
"Civilization".
I seem to recall that the purely European WEU (Western European Union) was touted as
replacement for NATO that would be purely European and built up, so there would have been at
least some discussion. I wonder what the dynamics of that fail were and if there are any
public documents that highlight it?
Stalin promised free elections in these exact same eastern European countries now conquered
by Nato only 45 years earlier. Instead he delivered murder, gulags, rape and ethnic
cleansing. Because of his total obliteration of any opposition, the postwar history today is
still corrupted with Stalin's and the Bolshevic's lies. Not to mentioned all those falsely
charged and executed at Nuremburg.
Take Stalin himself. Many Russians would claim that his continuing murder of millions
after the war was already won cannot be blamed on Russia or Russians. They claim it was the
USSR that perpetrated these deeds. But many of these same Russians suffer from nostalgic
delusions about the good old days under "Uncle Joe".
Yeah, I'd say they're moving from worse to as bad as it gets, as Mr. Global sets up a
coordinated, simultaneous, four-front attack (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, DPRK) on Rus allies,
along with their various false-flag absurdities. We'd better hope any adults left in the room
put Mr. Global in the psych ward, and real soon.
A handshake agreement to limit the eastward expansion of NATO ? This handshaking was going on
while Western commercial interests were penetrating, en-masse, the newly de-Sovietised
economies of Russia and the CIS states and that alone should have been a hint of what was to
come. I'd suggest that Putin was not one to miss that hint.
Power depends on domination and monopolisation of resources, people and ground, or at least
in an interim period denying their exploitation by competitors such as their contemporary
owners. Control of or denial of use of the wealth of Eurasia, the greatest land mass on the
planet, is the key to hegemonic control of the planet for an inestimable time interval, and
numerous routes have and will be tried to achieve this objective.
With that in mind, could anyone really express surprise at some long ago handshakes and
broken agreements made to Boris Yeltsin and a bunch of bewildered former Soviet bureaucrats ?
The Chinese has long since learned the lesson.
"[...] Anders Fogh Rasmussen said alliance members must be willing and able to exercise
military power "beyond our borders" to combat threats such as terrorism and missile
attacks."
"[...] By contrast, Britain and the US believe that to remain relevant, Nato must be
prepared to tackle potential security threats beyond its members' borders."
"[...] Afthanistan could serve a template (sic) for future threats and Nato's response to
them."
No mention of course of who defines what may or may not represent a threat.
Note also the author's opinion that Afghanistan is to be held up as a model of how to go
about things. The MIC's dream come true.
Whatever aliby is offered to explain whatever promise ever made by the US and Western allies
on whatever issue is difficult to take into account, since their very way of procceed have
been consistently always the same.
On historical facts on inteventions by US Imperialism in Russian sphere of influence and
everywhere, I bring in this Spanish translation of 56 chapter of the book "Killing
Hope" by Wiliam Blum, currently discontinued, with the following comment by the editor of
the blog which made the effort:
The recent American Empire (chapter 56 of Assassinating Hope, by William Blum)
"The way Bush and his people managed to deflect America's anger from Bin Laden to
Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest public relations sorcery tricks in history." John
le Carré, quoted by Blum.
Note from the blog editor : We offer the last chapter of William Blum's book on
interventions by the CIA and the US Army since the end of World War II. In this chapter
that closes his book, Blum tells us about the recent American "Empire", from 1992 to 2002.
It is obvious that between 2002 and 2016 many events have taken place in the world, linked
to US imperialism. The last 13 years are not reflected since Blum's book was finished
writing in 2003 and published in 2004. Even so, it is a chapter that we can extrapolate
perfectly to understand US imperialism. since then. Perhaps, everything that Blum describes
has been accentuated more and more in recent years. It is, then, a text that maintains its
relevance.
The term "Empire" applied to the United States it began being used by critics of
imperialism. However, as Blum tells us, more and more apologists of US foreign policy are
using it proudly; recognize and defend such imperial reality.
"The American Empire" is the last chapter of Blum's book. It closes a magnificent and
indispensable work whose knowledge and diffusion are required if we want to understand the
contemporary world. It is not possible to understand international relations, peaceful or
violent, outside of imperialism, just as it is not possible to understand capitalism
outside of the latter.
Documentary reference: William Blum: "The North American Empire from 1992 to the
present" , in "Killing Hope. Interventions of the CIA and the United States Army
since the Second World War" , chap. 56, pp. 460 to 471. Editorial Oriente, Santiago de
Cuba (Cuba), 2005 (original in English: William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and
CIA Interventions Since World War II" , Common Courage Press, 2004).
Digitization source and corrections (cite and keep the hyperlink): Blog Del Viejo Topo.
Images, captions and bold: they are our addition.
Other chapters of the book: to access other chapters published on the blog, see the index
at the end and click on the hyperlinks that are active."
David, I am familiar with the argument you refer to in the last paragraph. It surfaced in
looks at the larger ideological battle at the time as far as the more then extreme Nazi
propaganda was 'echoed' or found supporters for historical reasons e.g. in Hungary and/or the
Ukraine, arbitrarily. The larger "Judeo-Bolshevik" complex. I have a deep inner resistance to
where it feels it would end theoretically. Had they taken a different route they could have
made it? Seriously? They should have?
Along these lines, I am not sure either, if I want to reduce Ukrainians collectively to
Banderistas. Fact seems that obviously everyone in Russia is anti-Nazi, which includes the
extreme right.
*******
Prof Glees alluded to several people beyond the more spectacular cases in the UK. Eight, I
seem to remember. Only three were mentioned: Litvinenco, Skripal and Berezovsky's (suicide)*.
Not sure if Glees does include him in this list. unfortunately no one asked him for a list.
Who else does he have in mind?
david, it is always interesting and informative reading your comments.. thanks for making
them.. i struggle with the idea that anyone is is idealistic is being naive.. this is how it
would appear gorbachev has to be taken, but i struggle with it regardless, as i am attached
to the idealism that is built into his way of thinking as you outline here.. at what point
does humanity seek an alternative to war and the build up and preparation for war which is
the basis for NATO? as john lennon said 'give peace a chance'.. i think gorbachev did this..
would the usa ever let europe drop nato? would europe ever recognize how it is a block to
greater peace in europe? or, do bigger fences make better neighbours?
pat mentioned you might do a thread on the skripal / uk dynamic at some point.. i hope you
do... thanks..
Actually, the bezirk of which I am a citizen and taxpayer was once the oldest Republic in
Europe. Some Alemeni hill volk and some lake dwellers managed to purchase their freedom from
the Habsburgs in about 1350. This Free Republic existed for centuries until its
representatives arrived late at the Congress of Vienna in 1817. Our Republic was lost in the
same way that Switzerland was lost when it joined the UN.
Switzerland had a long history of preventing rulers and powerful cliques from gaining a
monopoly on power. Unfortunately, that history has been discarded in favor of giving up
sovereignty to globalist agendas like refugee settlement, global warming, tax law, and here
specifically: to NATO empire building (Switzerland is active in "defending" Kosovo).
This an old but pretty interesting article. Very well thought out and insightful analysis of American thinking and
objectives regarding their obsession with world hegemony, and Control of vital global resources, a very dangerous period now
threatens The Russian people and their resource rich land.
US Policy towards Russia today simply continues US Policy towards the USSR during the Cold War
Notable quotes:
"... The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions (the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union. ..."
This is an edited version of an interview Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of Russia's Security Council, gave to the official
government newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta.
Patrushev is one of Putin's most important advisors on national security. His position is similar in some ways to that of the
US President's National Security
Adviser .
As important about what Patrushev does, is who he was. He is Russia's most senior intelligence official.
He has served continuously in intelligence since he joined the KGB in 1975 and was from 1999 to 2008 chief of Russia's FSB – the
successor organization to the KGB. He left this post to become the Secretary to Russia's Security Council.
One of Patrushev's key jobs is to collate intelligence information provided by Russia's various intelligence agencies and to provide
it to Putin and to Russia's other key foreign policy decision makers.
In this interview Patrushev gives insight into what Russia's intelligence agencies are telling the Kremlin. Thus we learn that
Russian intelligence:
Did not expect Yanukovych to fall because of the Maidan protests;
Did however warn the Kremlin long ago that a pro-Western coup in Ukraine was only a question of time because of massive US
subversion in the country.
We also get an idea of how Russian intelligence sees the world.
According to its view US hostility to Russia is an unvarying "constant" because Russia, irrespective of its system of government,
resists US policies aimed at achieving world hegemony and because the US wants to control Russia's immense natural resources in order
to seal its hegemony.
Russia's ties to China and India and the emergence of the BRICS bloc have merely provoked the US to intensify its campaign against
Russia. Events such as the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the rebellion in Chechnya in the 1990s, the Georgian attack on South
Ossetia in 2008 and the February coup this year in Ukraine, are all simply manifestations of US policies targeted at Russia.
One does not have to agree with every part of this view. For example the claim that the USSR collapsed because of a US engineered
fall in oil prices as part of some carefully thought out US "strategy of vulnerabilities", though widely believed and not just in
Russia, is a myth and serves as a typical case of a spymaster's belief in external, conspiratorial causes for events that actually
had purely domestic, structural and sometimes even accidental causes.
Patrushev also undoubtedly overstates the degree of coherence in US policy and the extent to which US policy is always and invariably
hostile to Russia.
There is however much that is compelling about this view and it is easy to understand why within Russia it is becoming increasingly
influential.
From a Russian point of view it is not difficult to see US policy since the USSR's break up (eg. NATO's eastern expansion, the
tearing up of the ABM Treaty and positioning of anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Europe, the US support for "colour revolutions"
in the countries of the former USSR, the US support for anti-government groups within Russia itself, the US's wars of intervention
in many parts of the world and last but by no means least the ferocious US media campaign against Russia) as unremittingly hostile
towards Russia.
For the increasing number of Russians who hold this view (including its intelligence community) the US backed coup in Ukraine
was the final proof.
Russian Intelligence failed to Predict Yanukovych's February Overthrow
Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political
and economic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability
of an imminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time.
Let me remind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.
We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economic difficulties
that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens of billions of dollars
were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that its importance for the country's
survival was simply forgotten.
Russian Intelligence Did Predict a Pro US Coup in Ukraine
As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States
and its closest allies.
For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics
of the former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretexts
were created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.
Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during the
period 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on "supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, more democratic
government".
According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for various
American programmes of "aid" to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable with the
annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the State Department
nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.
According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Open
World Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard to
guess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been "opening the world" throughout the 23 years
since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
.. as a result of this activity ..an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with the
mythology of "European values". It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actually
designed for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people in Europe,
which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.
The Coup in Ukraine is a Disaster First and Foremost for Ukraine itself
I think the "sobering up" of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively
quickly, and a whole string of objective factors could promote that. I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events,
the significance of the one for the other – Russia and Ukraine – will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfully
without Russia, whether anyone likes it or not .
Whereas for Russia the total severance of links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is no accident
that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question of postponing the
implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU . It is to be expected
that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to more sober assessment of the real state of affairs .
US Policy towards Russia today simply continues US Policy towards the USSR during the Cold War
... if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy of "containment"
of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of its implementation change.
As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of a
"cold war". The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed
on the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATO's practical activity indicates that in creating the alliance
the United States was pursuing two main objectives.
First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.
Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competed with
the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateral
military control over the allies, is not included in NATO's zone of responsibility.
After the breakup of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which united Europe's socialist countries and which by definition
represented the main danger to NATO, not only was the bloc not disbanded, it began to expand even more in quantitative and military
terms.
The US Engineered the USSR's Collapse by Identifying its "Points of Vulnerability"
In the cold war period a whole string of ideological doctrines emerged in the West that served as justification for an anti-Soviet
political course. One of the authors of this kind of research was Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American political scientist and statesman
of Polish extraction. He established the so-called strategy of "vulnerabilities" in relation to the USSR, and under President Reagan
this became the basis of American policy towards our country .The identification and definition of "vulnerabilities" and the task
of organizing ways of converting them into substantial problems for the USSR were entrusted to the US Central Intelligence Agency.is
work, first and foremost economists but also experts from the business world who had real experience of business wars with competitors.
As a result of large-scale analytical work, the USSR's "vulnerabilities" in the political, economic, ideological, and other spheres
were defined and systematically studied.
Our country's main "vulnerability," as defined by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modelling, the American experts identified
its "weakest link", namely the USSR budget's extremely high dependence on the export of energy resources. A strategy of provoking
the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet state was formulated, envisaging two interconnected objectives: the bringing
about of a sharp reduction in revenue to the USSR's budget from foreign trade, combined with a substantial increase in expenditure
on resolving problems created from outside.
A reduction in world oil prices was envisaged as the main measure for reducing the income side of the budget. This was successfully
achieved by the mid-1980s when, as a result of US collusion with the rulers of a number of oil extracting countries, an artificial
surplus of crude was created on the market and oil prices fell almost by a factor of four.
A growth in the Soviet Union's expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American opposition
to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernment demonstrations
in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures on stabilizing the
situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the SDI [Strategic Defence Initiative]
bluff, and so forth.
It should be said that at that time the Americans succeeded in achieving their objectives. The outcome of their activity was a
substantial excess in the USSR's expenditure over income, which ultimately provoked a profound economic crisis that extended into
the political and ideological spheres. Shortsighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation through foreign
financial aid gave Washington additional levers of influence over Moscow. The "recovery" measures proposed by the West and implemented
through the IMF and the World Bank to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth transition from the previous monopoly system led
to the final collapse of the economy.
In the assessment of American experts, it was the strategy of "vulnerabilities", which demonstrated the colossal effectiveness
of economic variety of cold war compared with "hot" war,that was decisive in promoting the elimination of the USSR and the Warsaw
Pact.
The US Backed Coup in Ukraine and Sanctions are part of a US Strategy of "Points of Vulnerability" aimed at Russia
The coup d'etat in Kiev, accomplished with clear US support, followed the classical pattern tried and tested in Latin America,
Africa, and the Middle East. But never before has such a scheme affected Russian interests so profoundly.
Analysis shows that by provoking Russia into retaliatory steps the Americans are pursuing the very same objectives as in the 1980s
with regard to the USSR. Just like back then, they are trying to identify our country's "vulnerabilities". At the same time, incidentally,
they are pursuing the objective of neutralizing European economic competitors who have, in Washington's opinion, grown excessively
close to Moscow.
Washington has always sought to have levers of pressure on Russia. Thus, in 1974 the famous Jackson-Vanik Amendment was adopted,
restricting trade relations with our country. It appeared to have completely lost its relevance immediately after the breakup of
the USSR, but it was still in force right up to 2012, when the so-called "Magnitsky List" was promptly adopted in its place.
The current sanctions are in the same category. The US Administration's activity in the Ukrainian sphere is taking place within
the framework of an updated White House foreign policy course aimed at holding on to American leadership in the world by means of
the strategic containment of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centres of power. In this context Washington
is actively making use, on its own terms, of NATO's potential, seeking to use political and economic pressure to prevent any vacillations
on the part of its allies and partners.
Yugoslavia was a Dress Rehearsal and Russia's Weaknesss under Yeltsin let it Happen
In the 1990s the Russian Federation, for well-known reasons of an internal and external nature, lost the dominant influence in
the Balkans that the Soviet Union had enjoyed and embarked on the path of conciliation with the West. It was in the Balkans that
the unilateral and totally uncompensated surrender by Russia of its positions in the international arena was manifested most distinctly.
In 1991-1996 the bodies that shaped our country's foreign policy did not officially even have any such concept as "national interest".
They nurtured groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from the Western partners and some kind of special benefit for our
country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In practice our American partners almost immediately stopped
taking us seriously and only gave us a condescending "slap on the shoulder", so to speak, from time to time.
The NATO bloc, under cover of peacekeeping and without encountering serious objections from our side, operated increasingly confidently
outside its own zone of responsibility, sought the rights to lease strategic infrastructure facilities for lengthy periods, and effectively
brought the organs of military command and control of a number of Balkan countries under its own control by various means. The Alliance's
subunits became firmly established in the region. Other states taking part in peacekeeping missions, including Russia, set themselves
no such objectives, having reconciled themselves to the role of junior partners and preferring not to see the self-evident fact:
The war in the Balkans could perfectly well be regarded as a rehearsal and a prologue to larger-scale steps to redivide the world.
The US "War on Terror" Gave Russia only a Temporary Respite
Encouraged by the weakening and subsequent elimination of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible to ensure
dominance over the major sources of raw materials resources in our country and in Central Asia, as well as the transit routes for
their export. Washington planned to extend its sphere of direct influence to the regions of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the
Caspian.
All these territories were named a US zone of strategic national interests. The only remaining obstacle to the realization of
the Americans' plans to take complete control of the corresponding deposits and transport corridors was Russia, which preserved its
military potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.
American strategists saw the solution to this difficulty in the final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequent
dismemberment of our country . The first region that was supposed to leave Russia was the North Caucasus.
Particular importance was attached to Chechnya, which declared its independence and was temporarily under the effective control
of the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were offered support by the special services of Britain, the United States,
and allies in Europe and the Islamic world.
In these conditions the Russian leadership adopted a firm, principled stance of defending the unity of the state. Ultimately,
as a result of the firm political will displayed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and at the cost of enormous efforts, it proved
possible to stop attempts to detach Chechnya from Russia and then to consolidate the Republic's place within the Federation.
After 11 September 2001 the world community recognized the terrorist threat as the main threat and a global threat, reaching the
understanding that countering this threat requires common efforts. As a result there was, in particular, a slight weakening of the
West's attacks on Russia because of its campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, while we did not object to the
operation by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. The announcement of the formation of a broad antiterrorist coalition
followed.
At that time Washington displayed a certain readiness to collaborate, although in actual fact it did not intend to abandon the
policy of "containment" with regard to Russia. More and more new NATO facilities moved up to our borders. International law was supplanted
by the law of force (let us recall the aforementioned dismemberment of Yugoslavia, followed by Serbia, the occupation of Iraq, and
the invasion of Afghanistan by the so-called coalition forces).
Russia's post 1999 Revival and its forging Alliances with China, India and the other BRICS Has Alarmed the US
After 7-8 August 2008, when the Georgian leadership, with US support, attempted to annihilate South Ossetia, the world once again
changed substantially.
Everything was staked on surprise. The Georgian dictator believed that a military incursion on the opening day of the international
Olympic Games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, would carry out their "blitzkrieg".
However, the Russian leadership reacted promptly to the sharp deterioration in the situation and the necessary measures were adopted
to halt the aggression.
After the August events in the Caucasus, Washington was clearly alarmed by Russia's obvious intention to take its place among
the world powers of the 21st century and uphold the principle of equal opportunities and full autonomy in global politics. And also
to convert the state's financial income from the exploitation of natural resources into real economic and defence potential and human
capital.
The American leadership clearly also disliked the prospects of Russia's collaboration with China and India, the introduction of
the practice of summits in the BRICS format, the successful activity of other organizations in which Russia occupies leading positions
(the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization], the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], and the EAEC [Eurasian Economic
Community]), and the formation of the Customs Union.
In the context of the growing world financial and economic crisis, major new players in the international arena such as the PRC,
India, Brazil, and Iran as well as the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea became increasingly significant factors
for the United States. Hence, incidentally, the emergence of new conceptual principles such as the American-Chinese special partnership,
the strategic collaboration between the United States and India, the establishment of direct dialogue between Washington and Iran,
and so forth.
Indications of the need to resume the beneficial dialogue with Russia on a whole range of issues began to emerge from the new
administration of President Barack Obama. This positive inclination on the part of the American authorities could only be welcomed.
However, it soon became clear that Washington is not inclined towards real cooperation. It confined itself to mere statements
of friendliness and the devising of certain negotiation tracks from which the benefit to Russia, in the end, proved almost zero.
After a while even totally nonbinding positive dialogues of this kind came to an end and the US attitude towards our country began
once again to be reminiscent of cold war times.
The US aims to gain Control of Russia's Energy, Food and Water Resources to Seal its Domination
specialists are certain that no real substitute for hydrocarbons as the basis of power generation will emerge in the next few
decades. Furthermore the understanding prevails in the West that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, and other power
stations will meet no more than one-fifth of world demand.
Nor should another important aspect be forgotten. In the modern world we can observe a steady growth in the shortage of food and
drinking water for the growing population of the planet. The absence of the most elementary means of existence pushes desperate people
into manifestations of extremism and involvement in terrorism, piracy, and crime. This is one reason for the acute conflicts between
countries and regions and also for mass migration.
The shortage of water and irrigated land is not infrequently the cause of friction, for instance, between the Central Asian republics.
The problem of water resources is acute in a number of other countries in Asia and particularly in Africa.
Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories "under
Moscow's power" that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore "do not serve the interests of all humanity". Assertions continue
to be heard about the "unfair" distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called "free access" to them for other
states.
The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring
on Russia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form "coalitions" to support the corresponding claims on
our country. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russia's expense but without taking its interests into
account.
The Threat to Russia from the US is "Constant" and "Thaws" Never Last
Even during periods of a relative thaw in relations between Russia (the USSR) and the United States, our American partners have
always remained true to such notions.
Therefore irrespective of the nuances in the behaviour of the Americans and their allies the Russian leadership still faces this
task as a constant: To guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to defend and multiply its riches,
and to manage them correctly in the interests of the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format,
with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia
Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
More like hubris coming home. I do not believe in such "theories". USSR fall also was mostly to ineptness of the Soviet
Union leadership later period leaders and dark horse Eltsin. Stranger things happened in history.
I visited the Soviet Union in 1990 and Russia in 1994. All the Russians that I met, many rather influential, felt
that America would become their good friend after the Communists were gone. I told them that America would only be their
friend after American armored tanks were stationed in Red Square. They all bitterly rejected my assessment of the situation.
Unfortunately the Russian intelligence agencies see the light, dark as it is. Other factors, besides hegemony and natural
resources are at play. The American Neocon Jews have a murderous hatred for Slavics and they wield great power in America.
The British Royals eliminated competition. Why are they still ruling? Have you heard of Sir Halford John Mackinder?
Probably not. But here are some links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
https://www.sott.net/articl...
The Russian Revolution was instigated by the AngloZionist Banking elite and the British ruling class headed by their
royals. Brittain has fought many wars against Russia before the Russian Revolution. Russia was always seen as a threat
for the British Empire which was replaced by the American Empire.
While you are brushing up on your history read Conjuring Hitler. The game is to prevent Russia and Europe, especially
Germany, to cooperate so that the AngloSaxonAmericanZionist can continue ruling the world. The revolutionaries of Russia
were useful idiots in this masterful game.
So when are you starting your American revolution mister braveheart? I'm sure you will find funding in Wall Street if
you prove to be useful to them. Enjoy chopping of those heads. Hope you do it yourself. Do you have the stomach for it...
If you live in America, Russia and China guarantee your freedom. If you live in Russia then it is the West that
guarantees your freedom as well. Same thing in China. The external threat takes away from a government's
ability to persecute their own citizens. See that soldier sitting in front of Russia's flagship S-400 anti-aircraft missile
control
console? He is keeping YOU and YOUR family safe, say "Spasiba!", that's thank you in Russian. The same
thing goes for the soldier that is watching the displays in an American AWACS aircraft. He is keeping Russian
and Chinese families safe, so if you're in Russia or China, say "Thank you!"
What do you think would happen to you if Russia and China were eliminated? That's right. Again all those resources
that were spent on Russia and China would get spent on you. In a bad way. You could then truly expect hell
on Earth with the state having an over-abundance of resources to make your lives miserable. And by the same
What an interesting viewpoint! I agree. They will find a way to manipulate and mess with someone, either here or there--simply
can't help themselves. To them it is all a game, it matters not how it affects people at all, as long as they themselves
get something they want. I guess when a person gets too powerful, they get jaded and need bigger and greater playing
boards to wield their power on, with higher stakes.
I somehow think how very sad it is that Americans first escaped the clutches of the British Empire - only to be grasped
by them again and even to take over its mantle and to keep the empire alive. The Founding Fathers and all other ancestors
must be turning in their graves!!! How much struggle and suffering they underwent just to flee from the British Empire,
to get freedom and a better life for themselves. And their descendants threw that all away stupidly and fall into the
same abyss their ancestors tried to escape from. How very sad and tragic. Ironically, the only way the USA people can
free themselves (and survive), is if the USA collapses, the world leadership is taken over by BRICS and Americans can
rebuild their country. Pity most of them don't understand that. Because they are slowly dying! More and more of them
are becoming poor and doomed. And look at the draught in California, in this system ruled by the FED and bankers - no
USA government will be willing to solve problems like that and that means a very ominous future for the people of the
USA. When will they wake up??? Is it that their arrogance and idea of being "rulers of the world" keeps distracting them
from their own ever increasing suffering?
I wouldn't rush on dismissing the explanation for USSR fall. Absolutely everything he said did happen, after all.
Not only that but we clearly know that they're doing it again, on purpose. We know for sure Saudi Arabia made oil prices
drop on request from the US because they admitted so openly. We know Afghanistan was designed as a money hole for USSR
because Brezinsky admitted it openly. We know the USSR collapse was an economical one. It's very simple, very straight.
I don't see why it's hard to believe. Actually, it's hard to prove wrong.
I don't believe in the continuation of the US as it exists currently. Like there may be a 'window' for Putin there
is also a 'window' for the US, The US economy is in decline, it is de-industrializing and its financial system in real
danger of collapsing. Many countries are dropping the Dollar for trading and although Americans full of hubris think
it is not important it could cause a crash in the value of the Dollar. Once that happens the ability to project a global
military will become impossible as the UK found when the Dollar become the dominant currency. Even now the US is having
to stand down assets due to cost issues and keep destroyers in service that will be 50 years old when they are retired.
The real game change is the Russians giving the Chinese 'civilized' access to all the resources of Russia via trade
deals whereas the US wants to 'take' them. This will continue to drive the Chinese economy. Not easy to predict the future
but both sides of the power play are in a state of flux.
This just tells me the Russians are either naive or unable to do anything. Perhaps Putin really IS scared the sanctions
are hurting Russia so much he is almost ready to capitulate.
After observing Putin's dis-actions for one whole year, I don't think he will be able to win against USA. USA is just
too powerful and can do things nobody else can such as print as much dollars as it can. USA is playing a long term game
while Russia/China the BRICs are just sitting around. Soon the TTIP between EU and USA will be verified and it will be
all over. Even China will have to play to USA tune then. The sanctions against Russia will not be lifted for a long very
long time. USA will just wait Putin out and will make sure pro Western president is chosen next in Russia. Putin better
do something soon or it will be over and done with. Putin doesnt have much room to maneuver, all he can do is try to
blackmail the EU over the gas or demand he gets paid for his gas either in gold or Euros. Once Russia is subdued USA
will go after CHina and then it's all over the humanity itself. New 1000 years dark ages will come. I hope Im wrong but
I dont think I am.
Money is the strength of nato. Without money, nato is powerless. Money is also nato's achilles heel. Nato money is
worthless trash that has been devalued such that even cash is too expensive, and nato consumers use digital credits for
even basic purchases. You see, nato countries have so severely inflated currncy and taxed tye common man that to pay
taxes and buy basic food requires using credit cards that pay you to use them.
To counter this, a system reverted back to gold and more important silver will cause a complete collapse for nato
countries. Nato countries are bankrupted. all prices are rigged with algorithms and centrally planned. If bric countries
formed together a union and coordinated physical delivery for gold and silver, nato centrslly planned economy based on
worthless credits would crumble. Coordinated attack for physical delivery even on oil at todays price would crush nato
and usa economy forcing them to,deliver oil for less than cost of production.
This is the achilles heel for nato. Forcing nato to deliver physical goods, such as oil, gold, and silver for less
than cost of production. Then have currency backed by physical goods such as gold and silver to bring the est of the
world to use the new bric currency, the new world reserve currency, and thereby leave worthless nato currency to devalue
to absolute zero and face riots and civil unrest in their own borders. This will force nato countries to beg for treaties
and new conditions of peace, which the bric countries are free to accept if the terms are generous, but considering past
nato behavior, the terms will promise everything and offer nothing in reality, so the bric countries should ignore them
and let nato burn into ashes.
You have no clue how modern banking systems work. the two main issues wrong with the current fractional reserve system
are:
1. It gives banks the power to issue loans to whomever they want and to buy what they want.
2. They charge compound interests for their bookkeeping service. If I take a loan from a bank to buy a house from you,
I issue an IOU to the bank and the bank issues their IOU to you, the seller. The seller should actually get the interest
as the seller makes the loan, not the bank.
Gold and Silver are just trading commodities. Steel and oil is much more important. From the one you can make weapons
or agricultural implements, the other can transport the weapon or food. It is useful stuff that is needed for trade and
an accurate bookkeeping system is all that is required. A country that lives in the past where illiterate people had
to use gold and silver to trade, will never become a world power.
Read this sentence carefully. "All that is required to have a good and fair banking / financial system is an accurate
bookkeeping / accounting system to keep track of the value of mutual trading.". It can be electronic or if you really
don't trust electronic stuff,
Putin is playing the long game. Time is on his side--but not if he acts rashly. To contend with a monster like America,
a hero needs to remain patient, cunning, clever, sly, nimble, and resourceful as well as ruthless. Going after the monster
like an enraged berserker is a suicide mission. Whether Putin will be around to administer the deathblow is unimportant.
This grand game is much bigger than is Putin. God is on the side of Russia and China. The right people will be in charge
of them when the day of America's doom approaches. The Disruptor and Destroyer will then swoop and kill her in one night--but
not before annihilating her oh-so-invincible armed forces. America military might is maneuvering toward a date with monumental
humiliation....
Now I understand why Putin is so demonised in the West, and why Hitlery believes him to be the cause of all the world's
problems.I can see how Putin has thrown a monkey wrench on their diabolic visions by Assad's support, Asia-Eur-Asia cooperation
activities, BRICS,Crimea, improving relations with Egypt and former USSR friendly states in Africa etc etc. Good Work
Putin they can't fool Russia twice.I really pityUkraine, for becoming a piece in the US power games.
"A growth in the Soviet Union's expenditure was provoked in several areas: the transition from the strategy of American
opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan to the strategy of dragging it deeply into the Afghan war; the incitement of antigovernment
demonstrations in Poland and other states in the socialist camp with a view to provoking Moscow into additional expenditures
on stabilizing the situation in Eastern Europe; the whipping up of the arms race, among other things by introducing the
SDI [Strategic Defence Initiative] bluff, and so forth." Isn't this part completely accurate? Brzezinski himself gloated
over how he had brought USSR down with his plan of arming the mujahideens and forcing the USSR to intervene and entering
in a quagmire. The USSR had many flaws but it was still a great State, and its demise was a great tragedy for Soviet
peoples and to the whole world's working class, that now face unbridled neoliberalism since the "communist menace" is
gone.
I generally think that Stalin was evil. But I think if Trotsky and his minion would have taken over things for Russia
would have been even worst. Sort of like what happened when Yeltsin had power and then Putin took over. Putin has stabilized
the country as he is not the agent of the West.
Stalin decoupled the East from direct control of the ZioAnglo Cabal. That is clear to me at least. Then after Stalin
death Russia was able to modernize itself which I doubt would have happened if it was coupled to the West. If that happened
it would have gotten to the same state that Ukraine is in today. Just a cheap piece of meat that the wolves feed on from
the West. West does not develop ANYTHING once it enters a given country. It just feeds on it. Africa is the extreme example
of this.
The best defense is offense and as Cato the Elder put it:" Carthago dilecta est".
US has own weak spots to get exploited. Everybody knows what US power rests upon. Efforts must be made to use pressure
at those points, create zones of unrest and hostility between US and her neighbors ot make US increasingly busy at home,
reveal US agenda via RT and similar media outlets, US$ as world premier reserve currency status should be undermined
using every way possible and especially leaving the system itself to avoid US using her edge against Russia and China
and other measures. US should be kept busy guessing and put on defensive everywhere.
USA location has been to benefit of US but on the other hand it can serve as a jail when the rest of the world decides
to block US form having any influence outside her borders and region . Deprived of allies US is basically impotent outside
of her immediate vicinity.
It is all just a game of chess and the grand prix is world domination. Or perhaps it is all about survival. Is not
Novorossiya rich in coal and shale gas? Ukraine cant survive without it, Novorossiya could do well with it. To have or
have not.
Patrushev admits that the overthrow of Yanukevich caught Russian intelligence flat-footed, but does not explain how
and why. One of the foremost intelligence apparatus in the world, Russian intel couldn't see it coming?
"According to its view US hostility to Russia is an unvarying
"constant" because Russia, irrespective of its system of government,
resists US policies aimed at achieving world hegemony and because the US
wants to control Russia's immense natural resources in order to seal
its hegemony."
THAT is why you are always hearing nothing but "Because Russia, Russia, Russia" even as it pertained to the BIG LOSER,
SHILL-ary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Election. SHILL-ary works for the CIA, which reports to the CFR (Council on Foreign
Relations), which reports to CHATHAM HOUSE in the 'City' of London ~ London's FINANCIAL district ~ and home of the Rothschilds
(who, incidentally, created Rothschild-"Israel" in 1948 AD, for the very first time in human history).
I've said.. I think the average Joe Middle American, I think... has an order of magnitude more in common with the
Average Joe Russian than he does with your average German or Frenchman. I'd say, perhaps, even more than your average
Brit. We are both deeply Christian peoples who refuse to give up our faith and have been caught up in a terrible struggle
not of our choosing. It is a shame we cannot be like Rome and Constantinople... perhaps rivalrous quarrelsome brothers...
but brothers still.
I grew up in the shadow of Ft. Bragg and was aware of the concept of the cold war and the instant nuclear death at
a young age. I, too, in my youthful naiveté thought that the conclusion of the cold war would result in friendship. As
I became politically aware, I developed a grudge towards Russia for inflecting the Communists and liberal left on my
country. I saw the predicament and cultural rot my country faces to entirely be mechanizations of the KGB and its active
measures. Now, I understand the distinction between Soviet and Russian. The truth is, you were externally infected with
the same virus that we now face.. The Russian People and Culture are just as much a victim as me and mine own countrymen.
Maybe Secretary Nikolai Patrushev is one of the few who appreciates American/German history without dressing it up
in a multi-generational conspiracy. Does Sec. Patrushev know it's not about Russia? 1st, the Monroe Doctrine is still
here and it's not good: "Historians have observed that while the [Monroe] Doctrine contained a commitment to resist colonialism
from Europe, it had some aggressive implications for American policy, since there were no limitations on the US's own
actions mentioned within it. Scholar Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were "modeled after
those employed by British imperialists" and their competition with the Spanish and French. Eminent historian William
Appleman Williams described it as a form of "imperial anti-colonialism." Noam Chomsky, argues that in practice the Monroe
Doctrine has been used as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas." 2nd, Manifest
Destiny is still here and it's not good, either: ""Manifest destiny" is sometimes used by critics of U.S. foreign policy
to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere. In this usage, "manifest destiny" is interpreted as the
underlying cause of what is denounced by some as "American imperialism." A more positive-sounding phrase devised by scholars
at the end of the twentieth century is "nation building," and State Department official Karin Von Hippel notes that the
U.S. has "been involved in nation-building and promoting democracy since the middle of the nineteenth century and 'Manifest
Destiny.'"
"... what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated above.. ..."
"... The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of Europe." ..."
"... Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada. ..."
"... As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the leaders of the old Soviet Union. ..."
"... The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive fools. ..."
Not only was there a pledge to halt any eastward expansion of NATO. It was clearly
understood that Ukraine would be a permanent buffer state between NATO and Russian borders.
During the early days of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. launched the Partnership for
Peace, which was presented as an alternative to NATO expansion. Russia was promised membership
in the new security structure.
While some American officials, including military flag officers, called for the dismantling
of NATO at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, others argued that
NATO had an important mission: To assure that there was no new outbreak of war on the European
continent. NATO was the only treaty organization under which the United States maintained a
presence in Europe. There was legitimate concern that, after two world wars in the 20th century
broke out in Europe, it was appropriate to maintain a watchful eye that no new conflict erupted
among the contending European states. Given the Balkan Wars of the early 1990s, this was not an
outlandish concern. Ultimately, according to the logic of those promoting a continuation of
NATO, Russia could be incorporated in a new security architecture. In effect, under a revived
American-Russian cooperation, war in Europe would be a permanent thing of the past.
This narrative may seem absurd by today's circumstances. But there is now a growing body of
declassified documents that confirm that there was a gentlemen's agreement that there would be
no further eastward expansion of NATO, and that the Partnership for Peace would be the anchor
of a new Eurasian security architecture to prevent the outbreak of future wars, and to build
new cooperative relations in the economic and political spheres as well.
The National Security Archive, hosted at George Washington University ([email protected])
has recently obtained and posted a number of documents from U.S. and Russian files from the
early 1990s, recounting this story. They can be found under the headline "NATO Expansion: What
Yeltsin Heard." They are well-worth reading for anyone looking for a way out of the current
madness New Cold War rhetoric coming from Washington, Berlin, London, Paris and Moscow.
"... there is now a growing body of declassified documents that confirm that there was a
gentlemen's agreement that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO..."
-- Guess there are no gentlemen left among the US deciders... Cannot be too much of reminding
about the zionization of the US army:
https://israelpalestinenews.org/fighting-israels-wars-u-s-military-government-become-zionized/
Harper, Thanks very much for posting this piece. Somehow, I always thought (probably
naively), that the agreement was always a well known fact. I often wondered why our esteemed
leaders broke it. Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?
thanks harper.. this "gentlemen's agreement" story seems to rear it's ugly head every so
often.. as an outsider it would seem to me that there has been an ongoing concerted effort to
not let any friendly relationships between russia and the rest of europe develop.. i can only
think that this has been the intent of nato, especially since the changes in the russia from
89 onward...
what purpose does Nato serve? it seems like a perfect wedge serving the USA's foreign
policy objectives in isolating Russia.. what amazes me is the willingness of the poodles to
go along with this.. obviously the military industrial complex is well served by this as
well.. what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on all
levels? would this somehow interfere with the role the usa has had with these same countries
since ww2? at this point nato seems very redundant and only of value as i have stated
above..
Harper, this has been the lonely argument of Harald Kujak and a select few public others for
a longtime over here in Germany.
Yesterday I witnessed a debate under the header: Who is more dangerous Trump or Putin? on
German TeVe.
The British representative invited, the expert on British intelligence, argued he couldn't
understand in the least the German public. Seems 'poll wise' the vast majority of Germans
considers Trump more dangerous then Putin. There were phases in his talk were he seemed to
get exhausted and tried to address us more directly via our conscience/soul: We have to stand
up bold against Russian aggression, since it does not necessarily mean war, but if you do it
in a united fashion the other side will fold.
Meanwhile on another public channel a day earlier, second vs. first, a prominent German
economist seemingly joined Trump*. Strictly this is only to
Strictly it was part of the promotion of his latest book, something in like in search of
the truth. As economist he is obviously aware of matters that lately were alluded to here via
OECD. In fact it was the context of the first question to him.
*****
concerning European foreign policy, by now it feels the east dictates it to a large extend,
led by Poland.
I seem to remember that Yeltsin specifically asked that Russia be allowed to join NATO and
was turned down. The creation of an alternate organization was suggested, probably the
Partnership for Peace.
I was unaware of the "gentlemen's agreement," but it makes sense, and Matlock's testimony is
good enough for me. NATO was a cold war construct, and with the end of the cold war, NATO
could have been dismantled as the relic of a previous age. But institutions die hard and
those vested in them seek to maintain their budgets and find new missions to justify their
existence. European countries have indeed had a long history of conflict, and the alliance
did seem effective at maintaining the peace in Europe. Many of the new post-Communist
governments in the former Soviet Bloc also wanted in. It wasn't all our own doing.
The Partnership for Peace was another post-cold-war construct that gave the old school in
Garmish a new mission and something else to do. I think it might have been possible to bring
Russia in, but was that the purpose of an expanded NATO and the Partnership for Peace, or was
it aimed at isolating Russia and ensuring a perpetual western domination?
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine seems to have been the tipping point Did we play a
clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then came Putin's
assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine. And here we are,
witnessing the revival of populist nationalisms in many places, including the USA.
These pose a challenge to the post-cold-war "new world order" (I'm citing President #41)
which likely will be less and less pretty as it gains momentum. It might have been easier to
have abided by that "gentleman's agreement," and the issues we face to day might have been
avoided. But then there would have been other issues. We are humans after all and seem to
like "issues."
"...what would happen if Russia was to have good relations with the rest of Europe on
all levels?"
The non-obedient leaders of such countries in the "rest of Europe" would have been
compromised and removed from the positions of power by the deciders. Take a closer look at
May, Johnson, and, particularly, Gavin Williamson. Do they look like the persons of integrity
and able leaders? Was not Macron competitor conveniently (and fraudulently) compromised
during the last elections? Were not the Swedes ordered to keep the ridiculous lawsuit against
Assange?
The deciders have been weeding out the intelligent, principled, honest, and patriotic
individuals from the positions of influence in order to ensure that only the mediocrities and
pliable opportunists were "elected" for the important governmental positions in the "rest of
Europe."
"Did we play a clandestine role in that? I frankly don't know, but I suspect we did. Then
came Putin's assertion of Russian interests in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine."
Why don't you do some minor research on the "clandestine role?' The materials are in
abundance and are widely available on the internet.
For example:
There has been innumerous stories circulating about the West's broken promises towards
Russia. To be honest I thought most of them was fake and the russians were making them up to
to ease their pain felt about the loss of an empire.
Now based on the above the opposite seems to be true.
I just dont come to understand at all how can a once superpower with 1000s of nuclear
warheads can downplayed for decades. I just don't get it.
The ignorant western elite should heed the old szekler saying: "The bear is not a
toy!"
Yes, a very worthwhile reminder, thanks. It should be run every day on the front page of
major news outlets for the next year. Ignorance of NATO's failure to sustain that accord
becomes a Pandora's box of bear-filled nightmares.
"Why the desire to reduce the Russians to total insignificance?"
Your question provides the answer. The US and NATO aimed for a Russian government run by
natural resource-vending oligarchs. China would have been raised from its understudy role to
serve as an excuse for big ticket military spending.
Anna
@11
...The deciders have been weeding out ...that is very important observation. The other half
of that sentence is ´..who is weeded in..´ for example, in Germany, the current
new government has a social democrat at minister of finance, but he nominated a guy from
Goldman Sachs - Jörg Kukies. What more can be said?
I remember some bigwig, I want to say Scowcroft but can't really remember, said the reason
Russia wasn't allowed in to NATO is that they would be an alternate power centre to the US
within NATO. NATO is really there to assert US primacy over Europe. The Russia nonsense keeps
Europe divided and under the thumb, reconciliation between Germany and Russia is an abiding
fear for some.
NATO expansion was largely the result of extensive lobbying of the US Senate by American
arms and manufacturers in the 1990s, exposed by the New York Times at the time, as well as
for domestic political reasons to make Clinton look tough. Now it has all become a self
fulfilling prophesy by creating an adversary in Russia.
Prior to the 'Briefing Book' to which 'Harper' linked, the National Security Archive
published, last December, one entitled 'NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.'
A crucial point not mentioned in the -- generally excellent -- introduction to this series
of documents is that Gorbachev did not even ask for the verbal assurances he was given to be
put in writing.
This, incidentally, is a matter which Putin raised in his interviews with Oliver Stone. In
these, his comments on almost all the people discussed -- up to and including John McCain --
are restrained and emollient. His contempt and distaste for Gorbachev, however, shine
through.
Part of the background to Gorbachev's approach at the time was the advice he was
getting -- very bad advice, it now seems clear, with hindsight wisdom -- in particular from
Georgy Arbatov, the long-serving head of the Institute of the USA and Canada.
In a letter to the 'New York Times' in December 1987, in response to a column by William
Safire, which was headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', Arbatov made clear that
Gorbachev was intended to, as it were, 'walk away', from the Cold War. And he wrote:
'And here we have a "secret weapon'" that will work almost regardless of the American
response -- we 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?'
As it happened, Arbatov was completely and utterly wrong. The liquidation of the
security posture inherited from the Stalinist period, followed by the break-up of the Soviet
Union and the abandonment of communism, in no ways decreased Western hostility to Russia. The
seething and near unanimous hatred of Putin is greater by far than that towards any of the
leaders of the old Soviet Union.
The truth, it turned out, was that people like Gorbachev and Arbatov were naive
fools.
What however then becomes material is that if Western behaviour makes clear that those who
sought good relations with us were indeed such, it really is very foolish to expect that
Russians will vote for such people.
Something that saddens me somewhat is that, as became clear if one probed, a strong
undercurrent in the thinking of people like Arbatov was the belief that, although this had
not been Stalin's intention, his post-war policies had gratuitously wrecked the relationship
with the United States built up during the wartime 'Grand Alliance.'
I have difficulty thinking of any more promising way causing people to abandon such
beliefs than allying with those who venerate Stepan Banderistas in an attempt to bring the
Crimea into NATO. One thought people might be aware that Sevastopol is the scene of two great
sieges, by the French, Ottomans and British in 1854-5, and by the Germans, Romanians and
Italians from December 1941 to July 1942.
In both cases, the city fell. In the latter, however, the defenders tied up Erich von
Manstein -- one of the greatest exponents of mobile warfare -- and the German Eleventh Army
for seven crucial months, which among other things made a major contribution to the fact that
Stalingrad did not fall, and the Germans were decisively defeated there.
I am certainly aware of the role that Nuland and the State Department and the Obama
administration in general played in supporting the Orange Revolution. What I don't know is
what "clandestine" efforts--cash payments, secret promises, etc.--other elements of our
government may or may not have played. I suspect we did, but I don't know and for this, open
research is difficult to conduct.
anna - we see this much the same.. this is an organized move on the part of the west to
isolate Russia... i don't think it is working.. they have resorted to dirty tricks to get the
same result.. it isn't working either..
Now that matters are heating up in Europe-Russia relations, strictly along the lines of the
representative in the political talksshow circle, I talked about above, was Prof. Glees, he
speaks German has a semi-German background. Apparently was more frequently present on German
media, got glimpses. DW? Didn't take a closer look.
Strictly two of his arguments stuck out for me. One challenged how it would be challenged
here, Iraq, anyway:
a) it is no doubt significant that it only happened 7 km/?miles? from Porton Down. What
was he doing there?
b) if the Foreign Minister speaks he has relevant intelligence information.
Anna, re #11. There is very little 'weeding out from positions of influence' as you suggest.
The political preselection process ensures that such people do not actually get started on
the train, but in most cases they have already left as soon as they arrived, having seen, to
them, the nauseous and noxious collection of people with whom they would otherwise spend
years rubbing shoulders.
You will not find a Teddy Roosevelt or a George Washington in the current era.
I think you are underestimating the demand side of NATO expansion; many Eastern European
states wanted to be included in NATO - for reasons of both security and prestige (of being
associated with the dominant civilization on Earth and the Winners of the Cold War). In fact,
EU membership, NATO, and Plato went together - it was an act of joining (or re-joining) the
"Civilization".
I seem to recall that the purely European WEU (Western European Union) was touted as
replacement for NATO that would be purely European and built up, so there would have been at
least some discussion. I wonder what the dynamics of that fail were and if there are any
public documents that highlight it?
Stalin promised free elections in these exact same eastern European countries now conquered
by Nato only 45 years earlier. Instead he delivered murder, gulags, rape and ethnic
cleansing. Because of his total obliteration of any opposition, the postwar history today is
still corrupted with Stalin's and the Bolshevic's lies. Not to mentioned all those falsely
charged and executed at Nuremburg.
Take Stalin himself. Many Russians would claim that his continuing murder of millions
after the war was already won cannot be blamed on Russia or Russians. They claim it was the
USSR that perpetrated these deeds. But many of these same Russians suffer from nostalgic
delusions about the good old days under "Uncle Joe".
Yeah, I'd say they're moving from worse to as bad as it gets, as Mr. Global sets up a
coordinated, simultaneous, four-front attack (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, DPRK) on Rus allies,
along with their various false-flag absurdities. We'd better hope any adults left in the room
put Mr. Global in the psych ward, and real soon.
A handshake agreement to limit the eastward expansion of NATO ? This handshaking was going on
while Western commercial interests were penetrating, en-masse, the newly de-Sovietised
economies of Russia and the CIS states and that alone should have been a hint of what was to
come. I'd suggest that Putin was not one to miss that hint.
Power depends on domination and monopolisation of resources, people and ground, or at least
in an interim period denying their exploitation by competitors such as their contemporary
owners. Control of or denial of use of the wealth of Eurasia, the greatest land mass on the
planet, is the key to hegemonic control of the planet for an inestimable time interval, and
numerous routes have and will be tried to achieve this objective.
With that in mind, could anyone really express surprise at some long ago handshakes and
broken agreements made to Boris Yeltsin and a bunch of bewildered former Soviet bureaucrats ?
The Chinese has long since learned the lesson.
"[...] Anders Fogh Rasmussen said alliance members must be willing and able to exercise
military power "beyond our borders" to combat threats such as terrorism and missile
attacks."
"[...] By contrast, Britain and the US believe that to remain relevant, Nato must be
prepared to tackle potential security threats beyond its members' borders."
"[...] Afthanistan could serve a template (sic) for future threats and Nato's response to
them."
No mention of course of who defines what may or may not represent a threat.
Note also the author's opinion that Afghanistan is to be held up as a model of how to go
about things. The MIC's dream come true.
Whatever aliby is offered to explain whatever promise ever made by the US and Western allies
on whatever issue is difficult to take into account, since their very way of procceed have
been consistently always the same.
On historical facts on inteventions by US Imperialism in Russian sphere of influence and
everywhere, I bring in this Spanish translation of 56 chapter of the book "Killing
Hope" by Wiliam Blum, currently discontinued, with the following comment by the editor of
the blog which made the effort:
The recent American Empire (chapter 56 of Assassinating Hope, by William Blum)
"The way Bush and his people managed to deflect America's anger from Bin Laden to
Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest public relations sorcery tricks in history." John
le Carré, quoted by Blum.
Note from the blog editor : We offer the last chapter of William Blum's book on
interventions by the CIA and the US Army since the end of World War II. In this chapter
that closes his book, Blum tells us about the recent American "Empire", from 1992 to 2002.
It is obvious that between 2002 and 2016 many events have taken place in the world, linked
to US imperialism. The last 13 years are not reflected since Blum's book was finished
writing in 2003 and published in 2004. Even so, it is a chapter that we can extrapolate
perfectly to understand US imperialism. since then. Perhaps, everything that Blum describes
has been accentuated more and more in recent years. It is, then, a text that maintains its
relevance.
The term "Empire" applied to the United States it began being used by critics of
imperialism. However, as Blum tells us, more and more apologists of US foreign policy are
using it proudly; recognize and defend such imperial reality.
"The American Empire" is the last chapter of Blum's book. It closes a magnificent and
indispensable work whose knowledge and diffusion are required if we want to understand the
contemporary world. It is not possible to understand international relations, peaceful or
violent, outside of imperialism, just as it is not possible to understand capitalism
outside of the latter.
Documentary reference: William Blum: "The North American Empire from 1992 to the
present" , in "Killing Hope. Interventions of the CIA and the United States Army
since the Second World War" , chap. 56, pp. 460 to 471. Editorial Oriente, Santiago de
Cuba (Cuba), 2005 (original in English: William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and
CIA Interventions Since World War II" , Common Courage Press, 2004).
Digitization source and corrections (cite and keep the hyperlink): Blog Del Viejo Topo.
Images, captions and bold: they are our addition.
Other chapters of the book: to access other chapters published on the blog, see the index
at the end and click on the hyperlinks that are active."
David, I am familiar with the argument you refer to in the last paragraph. It surfaced in
looks at the larger ideological battle at the time as far as the more then extreme Nazi
propaganda was 'echoed' or found supporters for historical reasons e.g. in Hungary and/or the
Ukraine, arbitrarily. The larger "Judeo-Bolshevik" complex. I have a deep inner resistance to
where it feels it would end theoretically. Had they taken a different route they could have
made it? Seriously? They should have?
Along these lines, I am not sure either, if I want to reduce Ukrainians collectively to
Banderistas. Fact seems that obviously everyone in Russia is anti-Nazi, which includes the
extreme right.
*******
Prof Glees alluded to several people beyond the more spectacular cases in the UK. Eight, I
seem to remember. Only three were mentioned: Litvinenco, Skripal and Berezovsky's (suicide)*.
Not sure if Glees does include him in this list. unfortunately no one asked him for a list.
Who else does he have in mind?
david, it is always interesting and informative reading your comments.. thanks for making
them.. i struggle with the idea that anyone is is idealistic is being naive.. this is how it
would appear gorbachev has to be taken, but i struggle with it regardless, as i am attached
to the idealism that is built into his way of thinking as you outline here.. at what point
does humanity seek an alternative to war and the build up and preparation for war which is
the basis for NATO? as john lennon said 'give peace a chance'.. i think gorbachev did this..
would the usa ever let europe drop nato? would europe ever recognize how it is a block to
greater peace in europe? or, do bigger fences make better neighbours?
pat mentioned you might do a thread on the skripal / uk dynamic at some point.. i hope you
do... thanks..
Actually, the bezirk of which I am a citizen and taxpayer was once the oldest Republic in
Europe. Some Alemeni hill volk and some lake dwellers managed to purchase their freedom from
the Habsburgs in about 1350. This Free Republic existed for centuries until its
representatives arrived late at the Congress of Vienna in 1817. Our Republic was lost in the
same way that Switzerland was lost when it joined the UN.
Switzerland had a long history of preventing rulers and powerful cliques from gaining a
monopoly on power. Unfortunately, that history has been discarded in favor of giving up
sovereignty to globalist agendas like refugee settlement, global warming, tax law, and here
specifically: to NATO empire building (Switzerland is active in "defending" Kosovo).
Russia's president Vladimir Putin. 'One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states, and earlier discussions of the
possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity,' writes James Rodgers.
Timothy Garton Ash (There
is another Russia, 20 April) makes some interesting points, but misses others. While true that some "Putin understanders" do
seek to "excuse all" when looking at Russia today, there are also pitfalls in adopting the opposite approach. Nowhere does the article
mention Nato expansion. One can agree or disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of Nato's policies in eastern Europe since 1991.
One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states in particular, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia
and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity.
James Rodgers
City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09)
Nato's eastward expansion and the continued development of a US missile defence system in eastern Europe have contributed
to heightening tensions in the region. Russian military announcements and actions should be understood in that context, especially
considering that at the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact was disbanded, while Nato increased its membership. A new government
should carry out an evaluation of Trident's relevance to current threats in this year's strategic defence and security review,
but the alternative doctrine Paul Mason seeks (Russian
subs are circling, but what should Britain's nuclear deterrent be?, 20 April) in response to Russian foreign policy must
be a commitment to peaceful relations and a process of de-militarization and nuclear disarmament.
The non-proliferation treaty review conference in May is the opportunity for a new PM to resume relations and revive disarmament
negotiations, building on Obama and Putin's successful New Start treaty and setting out a willingness to scrap
Trident, alongside a commitment to seeking resolution of
conflicts through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN, rather than the cold war relic of Nato.
Kate Hudson
General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
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
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.
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from 'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / serggn 86 147 Follow RT on
Any hope of a quiet 2021 for Russia has been dashed as one of the country's top officials warns it faces a series of court battles that risk confrontation with the West, including a fight over the world's largest legal bill.
READ MORE: 'It will be a challenging year': Russia's minister of justice talks to RT about legal battle with 'Yukos oligarchs' & 2021 outlook
READ MORE: Moscow claims win after US court rejects oligarchs' demand for seizure of Russian assets in $50bn Yukos legal battle
FILE PHOTOS. © Getty Images / artisteer; © Wikipedia 38 1 Follow RT on
Yukos case: Netherlands prepares for hearing in $50 billion plus legal battle over disgraced ex-oligarch's former oil empire
New from
Weekend Edition
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Finian Cunningham is an award-winning journalist. For over 25 years, he worked as a sub-editor and writer for The Mirror, Irish Times, Irish Independent and Britain's Independent, among others. 14 Oct, 2020 14:56 / Updated 3 hours ago Get short URL
Five US-made F16 jets fly over the Presidential Office during Taiwan's National Day. 10.10.2020 TAIPEI, TAIWAN © Getty Images / Walid Berrazeg / SOPA Images / LightRocket 17 Follow RT on
Trump's claim he'll 'make China pay' is more pre-election saber-rattling and he'll up the ante even further over next three weeks
The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy
FILE PHOTO © REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer 10 Follow RT on
matsb Jul 9, 2020 at 3:39 pm
Christian O. Bruch/ laif Benjamin Bidder
Chris Gloag/ WirtschaftsWoche
Mischa Japaridze/ AP/ Picture Alliance/ DPA
The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 48/2019 (November 23rd, 2019) of DER SPIEGEL.
Charles Dharapak/ AP/ Picture Alliance/ DPA
490 9:39 PM
Print
7 hours ago It's quite stunning that in the 'Land of The Free' the police routinely steal
citizens wealth as they want to. I'm not sure even the Robber Baron's in Europe hundreds of
years ago were that blatant.
11 hours ago Lebensraum ?
11 hours ago This has been the policy since the Clinton years. Nothing new here. 
12 hours ago
(Edited) This Janusz Bugajski dude is a generic Russophobe of Polish descent. His irrational
hatred of all-things Russian is typical of the rabid Catholic Poles who've invaded Orthodox
Christian Russia multiple times over the last millennia.
After Magnitsky: Dead
lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Russia slaps
travel ban on 5 US ex-officials over 'legalization of torture'
Key
Magnitsky case witness may have been poisoned – report
