Sanctions on false premises are unacceptable and need to be fought. But the question is how? The larger story is the world
neoliberal system. The USA is imperial power of the global neoliberal empire, so to speak. So it can dictate other players what to do,
and often does. As long as neoliberalism is the social system that dominant on the globe.
IMHO Russia needs to be extremely careful with designing the countermeasures for the recent round of sanctions. The key idea of the
new round of sanctions is to limit export capacity of Russia to EU and to provoke internal discontent due to sliding standard of living
and create preconditions for a color revolution. Preventing that is the key countermeasure. So for example launching some new chemical
plants that consume a lot of gas (producing fertilizers, or plastics, for example) makes perfect sense. You can sell chemicals instead
of gas and probably can get additional profit because you do not need to transport gas several thousand miles West.
The standard countermeasure is import substitution but it will not work in many areas. For example in chips Russia is almost totally
dependent on the West and China. I think they have only one or two own CPUs (Elbrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
). All PCs and software are of Western origin (mainly China produced ). They also produce one mainframe-style open source CPUs (SPARC
compatible), and several low end microprocessors. That's almost it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_microprocessors
Similarly complex equipment with geo steering necessary to increase output from the old oil fields is not produced in Russia (BTW
this equipment dooms Trump idea of Mexican wall ;-).
So the key here is not to overreact and preserve cool head. May be just taking the blow and keep standing is the best policy. Otherwise,
if as the result of overreaction the standard of living drops, Russia can slide into Venezuela-style situation, or, even worse -- provoke
Brazilian-style the revolt of oligarchs (which will be happily financed by the West), or Argentinean style transition of power based
of fake promises of neoliberal candidate. Sanctions tend to aggravate internal problems in Russian society and that is the calculation
of the US congress. Now some Russian oligarch now will lose money. Sometimes serious money. As in neoliberal society "appetite comes
with the meal" and "greed is good" Sechin's, and others loyalty to the state is not absolute.
As Russia is still a neoliberal country resistance to the global neoliberal empire (even decaying and with discredited ideology)
is a very tough option. Especially open revolt against the dollar hegemony. That's the key advantage of the USA in this game: fifth
column that benefits from neoliberal globalization if a serious force in any neoliberal country.
In any case, I think Russia should take considerable time to create viable countermeasures, which need to be highly asymmetrical:
beneficial for Russian producers and still nor too harmful for the USA. Because the risk is to provoke the USA for another round of
sanctions. May be selling some part of reserves kept in dollars also make sense, as a symbolic gesture. I do not know.
I would think some aggressive "liberalization" of arm export is one possible reaction. Iran would buy a lot of air-defense equipment,
I think. If the USA do not allow to earn money in energy, Russia needs to find a decent substitute. And in some categories of weapons
Russia can give the USA run for the money. See http://www.businessinsider.com/arms-sales-by-the-us-and-russia-2014-8
Unfortunately currently there is no alternative to neoliberalism. But cheap oil (by which I means oil below $100 per barrel) might
not last another decade, so it makes sense to wait for the end of "chap oil age". which will be a knockdown for the USA. Becoming the
boy for beating for the USA is not very attractive prospect. They need to coordinate the response with China, because other then via
China they have almost no access to many technologies that originated in the West. West still holds tremendous technological superiority
in many key areas.
While equalizing staff of the US and Russian embassies is not a bad reaction on Obama provocation, it is important to understand
that countermeasures is what the US policymakers expect to start the spiral of tightening economic screws on Russia.
But in no way it is easy or may be even prudent for Russia to try to quickly switch from Western financial system to something else.
And Russia track record does not inspire too much confidence. They were first hit in 2014. They have several years to introduce the
domestic credit card and it looks like they did almost nothing. https://www.rbth.com/business/2015/04/02/visa_and_mastercard_join_russias_national_card_payment_system_44955.html
Sanctions are the "gentlemanly" neo-imperial language of gunboat diplomacy, never better
expressed than the attempts of the British government in the early 1950s to discipline a newly
democratic Iran. First the British Labour Government, then a Conservative government under a
splenetic Churchill, tried to put a halt to the runaway popularity of Mohammed Mossadegh, prime
minister of Iran, and his policy to shut down the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and nationalize
Iran's own oil. The British sabotaged their own company, refused to distribute the oil, and did
everything else they could to impoverish Iran. This was only after the AIOC had refused to
budge from its insistence on taking practically all of the profits and to refrain from treating
Iranian oil workers as subhuman. Ironically, the British needed AIOC money to finance their own
program of industrial nationalization and the welfare state. As is so often the case, the
"sanctions" merely hardened anti-imperial sentiment, and were succeeded by a joint US-UK
directed regime-change coup d'etat
None of this need suggest a diminution in the importance of national sovereignty. Sovereign
nations should be free to trade with whomsoever they choose, to protect which domestic
industries they consider worthy of protection. That is their right. They also have the right to
enter into trade agreements with others for the purpose of regulating the conditions of trade
between them, provided that they enter into such agreements without duress, bribery or
punishment.
Questions of Definition
The Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) explains that sanctions have become one of the most
favored tools for governments to respond to foreign policy challenges. The term sanctions
can refer to travel bans, asset freezes, arms embargoes, capital restraints, foreign aid
reductions, and trade restrictions, and represent efforts to coerce, deter, punish, or shame
entities that are considered by those who wield them to endanger their interests. They are
generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action in calculations that balance
diplomacy against war. Yet sanctions can be just as devasting in terms of loss of human life.
They may be particularly attractive in the case of policy responses to foreign crises in which
national interest is considered less than vital, or where military action is not feasible.
Sanctions that blanket entire populations generally do most damage to poorer and more
vulnerable social strata, who lack the means to avoid or compensate for their consequences. The
USA has more than two dozen sanctions regimes. Some target specific countries such as Cuba and
Iran, others target specific categories of person or institution or even specific named
individuals. Sanctions have been used in efforts of counterterrorism, counter-narcotics,
nonproliferation, democracy and human rights promotion, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity.
They are frequently applied as a form of punishment or reprisal for behavior in which it is
alleged that the target has engaged and of which the applying entity disapproves.
In the case of the UN Security Council sanctions resolutions must pass the fifteen-member
council by a majority vote and without a veto from any of the five permanent members: the
United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The most common types of UN
sanctions, binding for all member states, are asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes.
The UN relies on member states for enforcement, with all the idiosyncrasies and abuses that
this entails. The council-imposed sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in 1966 were intended to
undermine Ian Smith's white supremacist regime and were followed in 1977 by another set of
comprehensive UN sanctions against apartheid South Africa. They have been applied more than
twenty times since 1990 against targeting parties to an intrastate conflict, as in Somalia,
Liberia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The European Union imposes sanctions as part of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. They
must receive unanimous consent from member states in the Council of the European Union, the
body that represents EU leaders. The EU has levied its sanctions more than thirty times.
Individual EU states may also impose harsher sanctions independently within their national
jurisdiction.
The USA resorts to economic and financial sanctions more than any other country. Presidents
may issue an executive order that declares a national emergency and invokes special powers to
regulate commerce for a period of one year, unless extended by the president or terminated by a
joint resolution of Congress. Most of the more than fifty states of emergency declared by
Congress remain in effect today. Congress may pass legislation imposing new sanctions or
modifying existing ones.
In 2019, the United States had comprehensive sanctions regimes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran,
Sudan, and Syria, as well as more than a dozen other programs targeting individuals and
entities (currently some 6,000). Existing U.S. sanctions programs are administered by the
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), while other departments,
including State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Justice, may also play an integral role. The
secretary of state can designate a group a foreign terrorist organization or label a country a
state sponsor of terrorism, both of which have sanctions implications. State and local
authorities may also contribute to enforcement efforts.
The practice of sanctions received a significant boost with the formation of the World Trade
Organization, which recognizes the legitimacy of sanctions as a response to the failure of
parties in a trade dispute to reach agreement on satisfactory compensation. A complainant may
ask the Dispute
Settlement Body for permission to impose trade sanctions against the respondent that has
failed to implement. The complainant's retaliatory response may not go beyond the level of the
harm caused by the respondent. The complainant should first seek to suspend obligations in the
same sector as that in which the violation or other nullification or impairment was found,
unless the complainant considers it impracticable or ineffective to remain within the same
sector The complainant is allowed countermeasures that are in effect and would in other
circumstances be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. In other words, the result is that a
complainant responds to one trade barrier with another trade barrier, contrary to the
liberalization philosophy underlying the WTO. Such measures are nearly always harmful for both
the complainant and the target. Although such retaliation requires prior approval by the DSB 1,
the countermeasures are applied selectively by one Member against another. The suspension of
obligations is temporary and the DSB is obligated to maintain a review of the situation for as
long as there is no implementation. The suspension must be revoked once the Member concerned
has fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
In a 2019 decision
the WTO allowed China to impose trade sanctions on $3.6 billion of American goods on the
grounds that the USA had not followed WTO rules in the way it imposed duties on what it
regarded as unfairly cheap Chinese goods. The ruling concluded a case that China brought
against the USA in 2013 that stemmed from levies placed on more than 40 Chinese goods. At issue
were subsidies that the USA accused China of providing to its companies so that they can sell
goods more cheaply overseas.
The case touched on some of the deep politics of neoliberalism for which the WTO is supreme
icon, and which make the very notion of sanctions problematic as evidenced in frequent
criticisms of the WTO . These are that free trade benefits developed countries more than
developing countries; that countries should trade without discrimination means a local firm is
not allowed to favor local contractors, giving an unfair advantage to multinational companies
and imposing costs for local firms; ; it is important that nations be allowed to assist in the
diversification of their economies and not be penalized for favoring emerging industries; free
trade is not equally sought across different industries "" notably, both the US and EU retain
high tariffs on agriculture, which hurts farmers in developing economies; principles of free
trade often ignore environmental considerations, considerations of labor equity and cultural
diversity.
After 9/11 "" still one of the least understood events in modern history "" and amidst the
subsequent US invasions of the sovereign countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
de-stabilization of many others (including Libya, Syria, Ukraine), the USA set about disrupting
what it deemed the financial infrastructure supporting terrorists and international criminals,
(but not including the USA itself). The Patriot Act awarded Treasury Department officials
far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other
entities suspected of supporting terrorism, and broad powers to designate foreign jurisdictions
and financial institutions as "primary money laundering concerns." Treasury needs only a
reasonable suspicion""not necessarily any evidence""to target entities under these laws. The
centrality of New York and the dollar to the global financial system means these U.S. policies
are felt globally. Penalties for sanctions violations can be huge in terms of fines, loss of
business, and reputational damage. Sanctions regimes today increasingly impact not merely the
primary targeted countries or entities but also those who would do business with such countries
or entities.
Questions of Effectiveness
Sanctions have a poor track record, registering a modest 20-30 percent success rate at best,
according to one source, Emily Cashen, writing for World Finance in 2017. According to leading
empirical analyses, between 1915 and 2006, comprehensive sanctions were successful, at best,
just 30 percent of the time. The longer sanctions are in place, the less likely they are to be
effective, as the targeted state tends to adapt to its new economic circumstances instead of
changing its behavior.
Examples of "successful" applications of sanctions (always judged from the very partial
viewpoint of those who impose them) are said to include their role in persuading the Iranian
leadership to comply with limits to its uranium enrichment program. But if this was "success,"
why then did the USA break its agreement with Iran in 2018? And why was there an agreement in
the first place if Iran had never had nuclear weapons nor was likely to produce them on its own
account without serious provocation. Sanctions are also said to have pressured Gadaffi in
handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial, renouncing the nation's weapons of mass
destruction and ending its support for terrorist activities. But then, if that was "success,"
why did NATO bomb Libya back to the stone age in 2011?
Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail in another . Context is everything.
Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are generally more likely to succeed than
those with major political ambitions. Furthermore, sanctions may achieve their desired economic
effect but fail to change behavior. Only correlations, not causal relationships, can be
determined. The central question is one of comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions
better or worse than not imposing sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are
said to combine punitive measures with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build
multilateral support; be credible and flexible: and give the target reason to believe that
sanctions will be increased or reduced based on its behavior.
In cases where the targeted country has other trading options unilateral measures have no
real impact or may be counterproductive. Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine may have simply
helped to push Russia closer to its eastern neighbors, notably China.
To bypass sanctions Russia has shifted its trade focus towards Asia. Asian non-cooperation with
the sanctions helps explain why Russia was expecting to grow its trade with China to $200bn by
2020. For several countries in western Europe, the sanctions had a double-edged sword.
Russia is the European Union's third largest commercial partner, and the EU, reciprocally, is
Russia's chief trade partner, accounting for almost 41 percent of the nation's trade prior to
the sanctions. In 2012, before the Ukrainian crisis began, the EU exported a record
€267.5bn ($285bn) of goods to Russia. Further, US sanctions against Russia
increasingly and patently had nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with US interest
in exploiting its imperial relationship with West European vassal states to grow its LNG
(liquefied natural gas) market in competition with Russia, and by doing everything possible to
obstruct "" and to coerce European nations into helping it obstruct "" Russia's Nord Stream 2
oil and gas pipeline that will bring cheap Russian oil to Europe without passing through
Ukraine. The very opposite of principles of globalization and free trade.
The USA can afford to be aggressive in sanctions policies largely because (for the time
being, and that time is getting shorter by the day) there is no alternative to the dollar and
because there is no single country export market quite as attractive (for now and even then,
one must wonder about China) as the USA. Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail
in another. Context is everything. Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are
generally more likely to succeed than those with major political ambitions. Furthermore,
sanctions may achieve their desired economic effect but fail to change behavior. Only
correlations, not causal relationships, can be determined. The central question is one of
comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions better or worse than not imposing
sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are said to combine punitive measures
with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build multilateral support; be credible and
flexible: and give the target reason to believe that sanctions will be increased or reduced
based on its behavior.
Sanctions and Human Misery
Since the early 1990s, the US, Europe and other developed economies have employed sanctions on
other nations more than 500 times , seeking to assert their influence on the global stage
without resorting to military interventions. Yet military interventions tend to happen in any
case suggesting that in some cases the sanctions are intended to "soften up" the target prior
to armed conflict).
The economic stranglehold of stringent sanctions on Iraq after the successful allied
invasion of 1991 caused widescale malnutrition and prolonged suffering, and a lack of medical
supplies and a shortage of clean water led to one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern
history. Sanctions all but completely cut off the oil trade. Iraq lost up to $130 billion in
oil revenues during the 1990s, causing intense poverty to many Iraqi civilians. Prior to the
embargo, Iraq had relied on imports for two thirds of its food supply. With this source
suddenly cut off, the price of basic commodities rose 1,000 percent between 1990 and 1995.
Infant mortality increased 150 percent, according to a report by Save the
Children, with researchers estimating that between 670,000 and 880,000 children under five
died because of the impoverished conditions caused by the sanctions. Then US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright notoriously excused this horrendous slaughter as "worth the
price ." During the Gulf War, almost all of Iraq's essential infrastructure was bombed by a
US-led coalition, leaving the country without water treatment plants or sewage treatment
facilities, prompting extended outbreaks of cholera and typhoid.
Targeted sanctions can be equally devastating. The de facto
boycott on Congolese minerals, for example, has led to the loss of more than 750,000 jobs in
the nation's mining sector. The loss of income resulting from this mass redundancy has had
a severe impact on child health in the nation, with conservative estimates recording a 143
percent increase in infant mortality. Despite an international shift away from comprehensive
sanctions, this Congolese suffering indicates targeted measures are still not free from ethical
quandaries.
Application of sanctions became more popular at the end of the first cold war because
previously targeted nations could negotiate for relief with the oppositional superpower. In the
succeeding era of greater enthusiasm for sanctions it became clear that they could have dire
consequences for civilian populations, and this helps account for increased popularity of
targeted sanctions.
Sanctions of Spite: Syria and the Caesar Act
There are many current examples of the murderous horror of the impact of sanctions by
"civilized," usually western powers, especially when their targets are poorer countries such as
Venezuela and Syria. Not untypically, some of the behaviors that the imperialists seek to
change are themselves the consequence of past imperial aggression.
The secular regime of Bashar Assad in Syria has faced a ten-year existential threat from the
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda affiliates, ISIS and other jihadist entities supported by an array
of global and regional actors including the USA, UK, and other NATO members, Israel, Jordan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE. Whatever the regime's defects they are at the very
least comparable and in some cases dwarfed by those of many of Syria's opponents in the Arab
world.
The significance of genuine popular support for Assad , demonstrated in numerous polls, has
been marginalized by western mainstream media. The regime's survival, with air support from
Russia and ground support from Hezbollah and Iran, is extraordinary by any measure. Yet the USA
has continued to interfere in the affairs of Syria with a view to its continuing impoverishment
and destabilization by allowing Turkey to occupy large areas of the north west and populate
these with jihadist emigrees; funding Kurdish forces to secure Syria's oil resources on behalf
of the USA, and for maintaining prisons and camps for ISIS supporters, by maintaining its own
military bases; and permitting a constant succession of Israeli bombing attacks on what Israel
claims are Iranian-backed militia or Syrian Arab Army militia working in collaboration with
Iran; and approving further Israeli incursions into the Golan Heights.
Defeat of ISIS and recovery of non-Kurdish areas outside of Idlib by the Syrian Arab Army
(SAA) took place in conditions of considerable economic challenge, exacerbated by US-imposed
sanctions against both Syria and its neighbor Lebanon. This had a corrosive impact on relations
among top regime figures. Bashar al-Assad's billionaire first cousin and richest man in Syria,
Rami Makhlouf, complained in early 2020 of regime harassment and arrests of employees. Until
then, the Makhlouf family enjoyed exclusive access to business opportunities and monopolies on
hotels, tobacco, and communications, partly
camouflaged by a philanthropic empire that assisted many Syrians through the conflict .
Some $30 billion of the country's wealth, representing 20% of all deposits in Lebanese banks,
was trapped by Beirut's financial implosion, exacerbated by the unprecedented explosion ""
possibly accidental, possibly sabotage "" in the city's harbor area on August 4. Syrian
businessmen needed Beirut's banks to conduct business abroad, and to evade sanctions. A regime
crackdown on money transfer companies made matters worse by creating
a dollar shortage , depriving thousands of families who were dependent on foreign
remittances. Before the explosion, purchasing power of the Syrian pound was already worth 27
times less than before the start of the conflict.
Deteriorating economic conditions ravaged Syria's surviving pretensions to socialist
principle. In the first decade of Bashar's rule, there had been big gains in healthcare in
terms of available beds, hospitals, and nursing staff. But by now there were 50% fewer doctors,
30% fewer hospitals. Before the conflict, 90% of pharmaceutical needs were filled by Syrian
factories. By 2018 those factories which remained had trouble getting raw materials and
replacement parts for equipment because of sanctions. Before the conflict there was improved
land irrigation and food security. In 2011, abject poverty stood at less than one percent,
rising to 35 percent by 2015. The percentage of those facing food insecurity had fallen from
2.2% in 1999 to 1.1% in 2010. Now, 33% lacked food security. One third of homes were
damaged or destroyed, 380,000 killed and 11 million displaced since 2011.
Economic conditions were worsened by ever tightening economic sanctions and US enforcement
of the so-called Caesar Act from June 2020 (named after a faked human rights scandal in 2015).
The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act sanctioned the Syrian government, including President
Bashar al-Assad, for alleged war crimes. The purposes were to cripple Syria for the purposes of
regime change, while luring Russia further into the Syrian quagmire. The Act targeted 39
individuals and entities, including the president's wife, Asma. Anyone doing business with the
regime, no matter where, was potentially vulnerable to travel restrictions and financial
sanctions. The Caesar Act smeared the Syria Central Bank as a "˜money laundering'
institution and sought to render it impossible for Syrian companies to export and import from
Lebanon. It made it difficult or impossible for Syrians abroad to transfer money to family
members. The Act contributed to devaluation of the Syrian pound which tumbled from 650 Syrian
pounds to one US dollar in October 2019 to 2600 to the US dollar in summer 2020.
The Caesar Act (alongside legal initiatives in Europe designed to charge senior
administration officials with war crimes) were designed to stymie reconstruction, hit the
construction, electricity, and oil sectors, and cripple the Lebanese private companies that
would otherwise lead reconstruction efforts. Sanctions prevented non-U.S. aid organizations
from assisting reconstruction. An opposition leader predicted it would result in "
even greater levels of destitution, famine, and worsening criminality and predatory
behavior " and would precipitate regime change, migratory flight, excess deaths, and youth
deprivation. In a climate of regulatory confusion, sanctions often encourage over-compliance.
Prospects of reconstruction investment funds from Russian companies were
negatively impacted . Blumenthal ascribed responsibility for the Caesar sanctions
initiative to a "years-long lobbying campaign carried out by a network of regime-change
operatives working under cover of shadowy international NGOs and Syrian-American diaspora
groups." The country had already suffered severe US and EU economic sanctions. A 2016 UNESCO
report found that sanctions had brought an end to humanitarian aid because sanctions
regulations, licenses, and penalties made it so difficult and risky (Sterling 2020). In 2018,
United Nations Special Rapporteur, Idriss Jazairy, observed that sanctions impacted negatively
on
After 500,000 civilians returned to Aleppo following its liberation in 2016, US sanctions
and UN rules prohibited reconstruction. Returnees were allowed "shelter kits" with plastic but
rebuilding with glass and cement walls was not allowed because "˜reconstruction' was
prohibited.
In brazen acknowledgment of US support for the HTS terrorists of Idlib, the Caesar Act
exempted Idlib province, as well as the northeast areas controlled by US troops and the SDF. It
designated $50 million for "˜humanitarian aid' to these areas. Other US allies pumped in
hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, further exacerbating pressure on the Syrian pound
and substantially increasing prices for all commodities in regime-controlled areas.
"best-designed sanctions can be self-defeating, strengthening the regimes they were designed
to hurt and punishing the societies they were supposed to protect."
They recalled the destruction of Iraq's middle class in the 1990s, when US sanctions killed
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis:
"Their effect was gendered, disproportionately punishing women and children. The notion that
sanctions work is a pitiless illusion." .
Several European nations (Italy, Poland, Austria, Greece, Hungary) indicating unease with
the continuing stagnation of US and EU sanctions policy, restored tacit contacts with Damascus.
While the EU was an important source of humanitarian aid for internally displaced people in
Syria and for displaced Syrians abroad, it continued to refrain from dealing directly with
Damascus
or from support for reconstruction efforts, on the grounds of continuing instability.
Conclusion
Under indubitably wise international leadership, acting within a framework of equitable
political power among nation states whose sovereignty is sacrosanct, then perhaps sanctions
policies might sometimes be strategically appropriate. These conditions clearly do not apply.
The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a context
of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett is Professor Emeritus at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, and at
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He is an expert on international media, news,
and propaganda. His writings can be accessed by subscription at Substack at https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com.
A comprehensive roundup of the sanctions-based aggression being imposed on the world by
the bankster dominated west. I really don't think the majority of citizens have a clue what
is being done by their rulers, nor any idea of the sheer hatred being fostered by those
actions. The time for waking up is well overdue, the west has been sucked dry by those same
policies (especially the US) and the fall is imminent.
"The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a
context of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers."
Fact: "War is the health of the state" [Randolph Bourne]- meaning, the "business" of
governments is always war- war on its citizens, war on other nations, it never ends.
Invade the world, invite the world. Economic cold war vs. 1/3 of the world's landmass and
population. Seemingly purposeful hollowing out of it's middle class, the abolition of
educational/societal standards to placate the demands of wokeness and the replacement of it's
historical population with an eclectic mix of third world strivers, corrupt east asians and
south american day laborers. Oh, and an increasingly debt centric economy.
The USA is obviously a very prudent country which focuses on it's own long term survival
first and foremost. I expect it to do quite well in the coming years.
My good friend in Canada says that it seems to be a "BioSecurity Fascist State" forming
also. And it's not against Cuba , it's against the populace of Canada. Worse than anything in
the US.
Sanctions strike hard at the very essence of positive international relationship ""
trade.
U.S. economic sanctions are insulting, provocative, corrosive and largely ineffective.
However, trade is hardly the essence of positive international relationship.
Britain traded massively with Germany right up until Britain attacked Germany in 1914.
Germany traded even more massively with the Soviet Union right up until Germany attacked the
Soviet Union in 1941. Were it not for Japanese trade with China, the Mukden Incident that, in
1931, opened the conflict that developed into World War II in Asia""well, it probably would
not have occurred. In short, the trade premise that underlies your article needs to be
revisited.
Sanctions is war. US wars are always cloaked behind our alleged love for democracy and
freedom, but alleged friends beginning with Saudi Arabia and impacting every country South of
our border, prove we are liars, interested only in preserving the best interests of our
wealthiest citizens.
The purpose of US foreign policy is to enhance the profits of global US Corporations
regardless what the consequences are to local targeted populations. The US has extraordinary
power over the EU, but the Russian pipeline is evidence that EU support is cracking.
Shame on the USA for failing to respect the national sovereignty of other nations big and
small. Our constitutional form of government is not a model example of the fruits of
democracy and freedom, as both are crippled by original design, for profit prisons and
schools, toll roads, and the moral hazards imposed by misguided religious fanatics who impose
their will on a disinterested public.
Winston Churchill was a great one for blockades. Churchill, the MoFker is responsible for
5 million deaths. During the 2nd World War he shipped grain from India to Britain and left
the Indians to starve. Five million Bengalis and east Indians died of starvation. Let's hope
when the tide turns all this is forgotten and forgiven.
The war against Japan was instigated by blocades.
The war against Iran is the next.
Syria policy has nothing to do with oil or Assad being a dictator. It is a continuation of
Israel's policies. The whole purpose of these wars is to establish an independent Kurdish
state so that the pressure on Israel could be reduced and states in the region could be
destabilized. While the US was busy trying to fight Israel's wars in ME, China has become a
strategic threat with no signs of slowing down the process of overtaking the US as the
dominant superpower of the world. Despite all the damage these policies have caused, even the
so-called conservatives in the US keep repeating nonsensical ideas like "Kurds deserve a
state." Not realizing that there is no such thing as "deserving a state" or that this just a
zionist project that offers nothing to the US.
Regarding China, sanctions should be used more not less, unless the US wants to be the
secondary power. However, they are not needed with other countries. In ME, the US should wash
its hands off Israel and let the most moral army of the world protect their own country. That
country is a huge liability and problem for the US, it offered the US nothing other than
selling American military secrets and earning 1.5 billion Muslims' disdain. To counter Russia
and Iran, the US should double down on cooperating with Turkey, increase investments and
military support so that Turks can be more active in Central Asia and Afghanistan as well.
This is the smartest and the most efficient way for the US to achieve its goals in Asia and
ME. Which would be slowing China's growth, Russia's creeping in the South, and Iranian
activity in Arab ME.
However, the US basically does the opposite of everything it should. Turning
neutral/unfriendly with Turkey is one of the dumbest things the US foreign service could do,
considering the fact that Turks are the historical enemies of all three of China, Russia, and
Iran, and they did exactly that? Why? For Israel whose feelings were hurt by Erdogan of
course. Currently, the US government is a hostage to vocal minorities and interest groups.
Therefore, its relative decline will not stop unless actual Americans with no double
allegiances step up and take back their government.
Canada is a pathetic American colony, selling their resources cheap in return for being
allowed to have a few crappy hockey teams and access to degenerate American entertainment.
The Brits tell them to murder white Germans, they do it. The Americans tell them to murder
Afghans, they do it...
The US government is a menace to all, including the US population. All US presidents are
war criminals, and sanctions are only one aspect of their endless criminality.
Sanctions are the modern day adaptation of siege warfare. It's essentially a
"˜starve them out' approach to foreign policy. Theoretically, one presumes, the goal is
to cause enough instability to harm the targeted regime. But I can't think of a single time
they have succeeded at anything but causing mass suffering to those at the bottom of the
power pyramid.
In the case of sanctions on Iraq and the subsequent corrupt Oil-For-Food Program, the
sanctions became a vehicle to transfer billions of dollars to oligarchs and their pet
politicians" as usual.
The U.S. has leveled sanctions on Russia over election interference and cyberattacks,
including barring U.S. financial institutions from buying new domestically issued Russian
government debt.
The Biden Administration went where Presidents Obama and Trump had not, barring U.S.
financial institutions from buying new domestically issued Russian sovereign bonds. The move
excluded the secondary market, though. Anyone can still trade the so-called OFZs already in
circulation. And it was matched by a substantial carrot: a dovish speech on Russia by Biden,
floating a potential summit with Putin this summer.
The market had feared worse, says Vladimir Tikhomirov, chief economist at BCS Global Markets
in Moscow. The ruble is still down 4%, and stocks 3%, since Russia stoked tensions a month ago
by massing troops on Ukraine's border. That is despite buoyant oil prices that should benefit
Russia. "Everyone was discussing direct punishment of Russian companies or a cutoff from
SWIFT," he says, referring to the backbone for global financial transactions. "The actual
sanctions turned out to be relatively mild."
Global investors have been fleeing the OFZ market without any push from the White House.
Foreigners' share of outstanding bond holdings have fallen to 20% from about a third last
summer, notes Aaron Hurd, senior currency portfolio manager at State Street Global
Advisors.
Political risk still depresses the value of Russian assets by 15%, Tikhomirov
estimates. That is reasonable considering Biden's options for escalating sanctions, says
Daniel Fried, an Atlantic Council fellow who was the State Department's sanctions coordinator
under Obama. "He could move into the secondary debt market, restrict state-owned energy
companies' ability to raise capital, or go after the money hidden by Putin and his cronies," he
says. "It could get to be a pretty tight squeeze."
To close the political risk gap, Putin needs to at least restore calm with Ukraine, risking
domestic political face after a month of hyping the alleged threat from Russia's southern
neighbor. The coming week offers two opportunities for Putin to move toward Biden's proffered
stable relationship, Tikhomirov says. He could sound friendly in an annual state of the nation
address scheduled for April 21, and he could turn up (virtually) for the global climate summit
Biden has called on April 23-24.
These may be far overshadowed by Alexei Navalny, the
Russian opposition leader who is on hunger strike in a maximum-security prison outside
Moscow. Navalny-allied doctors said April 17 he could "die within days" without outside medical
intervention. Backing off from its merciless treatment of Navalny would also look like an
embarrassing climb-down from the Kremlin's point of view.
Hurd expects a stalemate where Russian assets could nudge higher as oil prices remain firm
and the Central Bank of Russia raises interest rates. Putin will make few concessions with his
party facing parliamentary elections in September, he predicts. Washington will be constrained
by the European Union's reluctance to stiffen anti-Russian measures. "The ruble could still go
higher from here, but we remain tentative over the next six months," he says.
Putin has essentially accomplished the goal he set after his 2014 invasions of Ukraine, a
self-sufficient Russia that can pursue its perceived security interests without worrying what
the rest of the world thinks, says Yong Zhu, portfolio manager for emerging markets debt at
DuPont Capital Management.
Government debt amounts to a mere 18% of gross domestic product, and in a pinch can be
serviced domestically. That keeps yields too low to pay for the country's geopolitical
turbulence, he concludes: 10-year Russian domestic bonds pay about 7% annually, compared with
9% for Brazil or South Africa. "Russia doesn't really need anything beside the iPhone," Zhu
quips.
Self-reliance has also spelled isolation from the capital and talent that could lift Russia
to its proper place in global innovation and growth. But Putin and his regime seem to like it
that way.
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.
And this is also another opportunity of all the other stuff the US could have demanded
their allies should do as well as the USA that they haven't done because it would have caused
extreme autof/kery, sic banning the sale of airliners, engines, electronics etc. Russia could
simply have pulled its titanium supply. Guess who's share prices would tank first and all the
consequences?
As we have pointed out here before, while the US is exhorting u-Rope to 'take on for the
team,' mega-corps (though weakening) like GE has arrange full localization of its turbine
(power/mineral extraction) business with a local Russian partner. Yes. GE, Microsoft and
others told the White House to f/k off. Not in public.
What we see is salami slicing sanctions (SSS) where the west adds small slices here and
there that do add up, the latest being on suppling microelectronics to the Russian aviation
industry. This is to hobble Russia's investment in its current rebuilding of its civil
airliner industry or what's left of it. These sanction are a dick move precisely because they
are easy and get support from both american political parties.
We have also covered on this blog many times before, cutting Russia off from the Joy of
Sex West, they've cut their own markets off (retail/food produce etc.) which Russia
has in turn finally massively self-invested for domestic products and also up market
equivalents. That's cost u-Rope billions not only in lost sales, but in future sales share
that will not return to where it once was.
So, cutting off western microelectronics for aircraft looks even more weak p*ss
considering Russia's state strategic program of Russianizing its aircraft programs despite
the obvious up front cost. Russia was doing this anyway because it was obvious which way the
wind was blowing. Either they get on with it or they will be forced to do it.
The west is running out of any meaningful sanctions they can enact without causing futher
blowback. How stupid is that? It's the product of thirty years of 'Do Something'
policy however dumb or short sighted because the West has to be seen to do something. The
concept of Leave it Alone has never crossed their minds. It really is an ad dick tion!
😉 Just don't expect to finding them in a self-help group admitting to all the nasty
s/t they've done and as part of their step program, reaching out and apologizing for any of
it. Neither them nor their media supporting hamsters.
Not sure who this Andrei Martyanov is, but underlying all the comments is the proposition
that Putin-managed capitalism works great, will work great forever, will not have a crisis
ever and will make Russia totally independent in all ways. Stated so forthrightly, no doubt
it sounds too stupid to admit to. Nonetheless this is the claim. I say capitalist restoration
did not improve the Russian economy in the way implied by Martyanov. Putin is still a
Yeltsinite, even if he is sober enough to pass for competent.
I take the opposite view: Looking from today, Russia is lucky that the USSR collapsed in
1991. It shed its debt, its currency passed through hyperinflation, and their economy
collapsed and rebuilt. The US and most Western countries still have that coming for them, and
soon.
Plus beyond that the strict Communist/Marxist atheism over 70+ years lead to a rebirth of
Christian values in Russia, their biggest advantage in this cultural war. And they practice
science, not scientism.
Note: Russia and China are more capitalist than the US, for quite some time now. (12+
years)
@110 Abe as far as I understand it, the economic argument goes like this: take the number of
rubles generated/spent/whatever in Russian economic activity, then use the current conversion
rate to convert that into an "equivalent" amount of US dollars.
Then see what you can buy with that many US dollars.
If you went shopping in the USA, the answer would be that this many US dollars doesn't buy
you much, ergo, Russian economic activity is pathetically low.
An example: the Russian government might budget xxx (fill in the figure) rubles to buy new
T-90 tanks. In Washington they would convert that into US dollars, and then declare that this
is chicken-feed. Hardly enough to buy less than 10 Abrams tanks.
Only the Russians aren't buying Abrams tanks from the USA, and are not spending dollars.
They are buying T-90 tanks, and for the amount of rubles spent they'll get 50 tanks.
Every metric the US analyst are using tells them that the USA is vastly, vastly
outspending the Russians on military equipment, to the point where it is obvious that the
Russian military must be destitute and decrepit.
But if they every took the time to look they'll see 50 brand-spanking new T-90 main battle
tanks. Weapons that their assumptions say that the Russians can't afford, and would wonder
"Huh? Where'd they come from?"
@ Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 18 2020 4:11 utc | 96
I agree that comparing Russia's economy with the likes of Italy and Spain is ridiculous,
but it's not that simple. Capitalism is not what is appears to be.
If a (capitalist) nation wants to get something from another (capitalist) nation, it needs
to export something. There's no free lunch in international trade: if you want to import, you
have to export or issue sovereign debt bonds (treasury bonds).
In this scenario, either Russia produces everything it needs in its own territory or it
will have to export in order to import the technology it needs to do whatever it needs to do.
Remember: the Russian Federation is a capitalist nation-state, it has to follow the laws of
motion of capitalism, which take precedence over whatever Putin wants. To ignore that
economic laws exist is to deny any kind of theory of collapse; nation-states would then be
eternal, natural entities with no entropy.
Even if Russia produces everything it needs in its own territory, it is still capitalist.
It would need, in order to "substitute imports", to super-exploit its own labor force
(working class) in order to extract surpluses for its industrialization efforts. That's what
the USSR did during Stalin.
If Russia is doing the imports substitution in the classical way (the way Latin America
did during the liberal dictatorships of the 1950s-1980s), then it is trying to sell
commodities to industrialized countries in order to import technology and machinery necessary
to industrialize its own territory. That is probably the case here.
Assuming this more probable case, then I'm sorry to tell you it won't work. It may work in
the short or even medium term, but it will ultimately fail in the long term. The thing is
that, in a system of capitalist exchange between an agrarian and an industrial nation-state,
the industrial nation-state will always have the advantage (i.e. have a trade surplus).
That's because of Marx's labor theory of value: industrialized commodities ("manufactured
goods") have more intrinsic value than agrarian/raw material commodities - just think about
how many kilos of bananas Brazil would have to export to the USA in order to import one
single unit of an iPhone 12, to use an contemporary example. As a social result,
industrialized countries have a higher organic composition of capital (OCC) than agrarian
countries, as they need more value to just keep themselves afloat (as a metaphor: it's more
expensive to keep a big mansion than a little flat in a stationary state). Value (wealth)
then tends to flow from lower OCC to the higher OCC, this is the material base that divides
the First and Third World countries until today.
To make things even worse, raw materials/agricultural products have an inelastic demand,
which means their prices fall when production rises, and their prices rise when production
falls, relative to overall demand. You will pay whatever the water company will charge you
for the cubic meter of water - but you won't consume more or less water because of its price,
hence the term "inelastic": demand tends to be more or less constant on a macroeconomic
level. The same problem suffers the commodity exporter nations: there will come a stage where
their exports' overall value will collapse vis-a-vis the machinery and technology they need
to import.
As a result, the commodity exporter nations will have to get more debt overseas, by
issuing more T-bonds, just to keep the trade balance afloat. What was the quest for progress
becomes a vicious battle for mere survival. A debt crisis is brewed.
And that's exactly what happened to the Latin American countries in the 1980s-1990s: their
debt exploded and they were put to their knees by the USA (the country that issues the
universal fiat currency). The USA then charged their debt, which triggered a wave of
privatizations of everything those countries had built over decades. This is what will happen
to Russia if it falls for the lure of imports substitution.
That's why I urge the Russians to review their concepts and try to get back to the Soviet
times. It doesn't need to be exactly how it was before: you can make the due reforms and
adopt a more or less Chinese model of socialism. That's the only way out, if the Russian
people doesn't want to be enslaved by the liberals (capitalists).
@vk from what i'm reading (stephen cohen: soviet fates and lost alternatives) the chinese
adopted something like bukharin's nep policies, which stalin did his best to wipe out in the
ussr. i've got some problems with cohen's last book, "war with russia?" but he has a lot of
good information on the history of the ussr.
@ Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 18 2020 15:14 utc | 118
On the surface, yes: the comparison between Reform and Opening Up and NEP are
irresistible. But it is not precise: the only merit it has is in the fact that it is fairer
than simply classifying Deng Xiaoping's reforms as neoliberalism (Trotskysts, Austrian
School) or capitalism (liberals).
The key here is the difference of the nature of the Chinese peasant class and the Russian
peasant class. The Chinese peasant class, besides suffering a lot (millions of dead by
famine) in the hands of a liberal government for decades (Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist
Government) (while the Russian equivalent - the "February Revolution" - only lasted a few
months, engulfed by their insistence on continuing with the meat-grinder of WWI), had a
different historical subtract.
Chinese late feudalism was much more developed, much more manufactured-centered than
Russian late feudalism. As a result, the Chinese peasant was much more proletarian-minded
than the feudal Russian peasant. Also, the Chinese didn't have the kulak problem (peasant
petite-bourgeoisie) - instead, they had regional warlords who self-destructed during the
chaotic republican period (1911-1949). When the warlords were gone, what was left was a much
more proletarian-minded, egalitarian-minded, small peasantry. This peasantry didn't bother to
migrate to the cities to work in the industry or to start their own factories in the
countryside itself. That's why Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up was successful - not
because of his genius, but because he was backed up by a capable people.
The Chinese peasantry, for example, didn't hoard or directed their grain surplus to
exports in order to starve the proletariat to death in the cities - they sold it to the
Chinese market. The Chinese peasantry also trusted their central government (CCP) and saw
itself as part of the project - in complete opposition to the feudal-minded Russian kulak,
who saw his piece of land as essentially an independent and self-sufficient
cell/ecosystem.
That's why the Reform and Opening Up was successful (it survives until the present times)
and the NEP soon failed - following the good harvest of 1924, came the awful harvest of 1926,
which triggered a shit show where the peasantry hoarded the grain and almost starved the USSR
to extinction, and which led to Stalin's ascension and the dekulakization process (forced
collectivization).
i should add that i know little about the actual history of communism, but capitalism is
revealing itself as a monstrous failure, and not all the propaganda in the world is
succeeding at covering that up.
I know how economic reasoning comes to that conclusion, but IRL comparing such different
countries only by GDP metric is insane and beyond stupid.
Eg. Russia has GDP similar to California!
Yes, in US centric GDP metrics that favors and cheats US itself (surprise!).
But. One of those countries sent man in space, produces everything, has vast resources and
is self sufficient nuclear superpower.
Other one cant even feed and provider water to its population without outside help.
GDP means nothing when sh*t hits the fan. What will "richer" country do if it goes to war
with "poorer"? Throw money at them while they launch nukes at it?
@ Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 18 2020 16:11 utc | 122
There certainly are similarities between the NEP and the Reform and Opening Up. It's very
possible Deng Xiaoping took Lenin as inspiration.
Forgot to mention the Scissors Crisis, which erupted in 1923, and triggered the NEP. That
crisis is one more evidence that shows manufactured products are inherently more valuable
than raw materials/agrarian products.
Again, for products of Western "education" basic logic and ability for a basic
extrapolation seem beyond the grasp: there are no issues for Russia to produce anything,
other than time and some money. Country which produces best hi-tech weapons in the world,
dominates world's nuclear energy market (this is not your iPhone "hi tech") and has a full
enclosed cycle for aerospace industry, among many other things, will have little trouble in
substituting pretty much anything. I remember a bunch of morons, who pass for "analysts",
from either WSJ or WaPo declaring 6 years ago that sanctions will deny Russia access to
Western extraction technologies. Sure, for a country whose space program alone will crush
whole economies of UK or Germany should they ever try to recreate it, will have "problems"
producing compressor or drill equipment with the level of Russia's metallurgy and material
science. Generally speaking, West's present pathetic state is a direct result of utter
incompetence across the board in a number of key fields of human activity and your post, most
likely based on some BS by Western media, is a good demonstration of this state of the
affairs.
Per immigration policy, you can easily find a a truck load of resources, especially on the
web-sites of Russian diplomatic missions (Embassies, Consulates etc.), easily available. Per
cats--Russian love for cats is boundless and intense. You may say that Russia is a
cat-obsessed country;)
vk@120 posits a mystical cultural difference in Russian and Chinese peasants, which
unfortunately has pretty much the same content as the hypothesis of a racial difference. That
the morally superior race is supposed to be Chinese doesn't really help. As often, some
strange assertions of facts that aren't so accompany such bizarre thinking. The rich peasants
in China (what would be kulaks in Russian history,) were notorious for moneylending. As ever,
the inevitable arrears ended in the moneylender's family taking the land. Collectivization
came early in China, well along the way by 1956. And a key aspect of it was the struggle
against the Chinese equivalent of the kulak class. As for the insistence that private farming
is superior, the growth of inequality in land drove millions, a hundred million or more, into
the cities. Without residence permits this floating proletariat was effectively
superexploited by the new capitalist elements, as Deng meant them to do. Nor did the warlords
discredit themselves, not as a group. If anything the young warlord who forced Chiang to
reject active war against the Communists, in order to fight the Japanese invaders, was the
one who kept the GMD (KMT in Wade-Giles,) from discrediting itself. [Xian incident] And what
warlords had to do with the Chinese rich peasantry *after* the Revolution is a complete
mystery.
Socially, the deliberate uneven development promoted by Deng and his successors, is
eroding the social fabric of the larger countryside. This, in addition to the neocolonial
concessions, the growing links to the Chinese bourgeoisie of the diaspora suggest that as
Dengists may go even back/forward to a new form of warlordism. The thing about comparing
Bukharism/NEP to Dengism/the "Opening" is that Bukharin's program failed spectacularly. But
modern China is not next door to Nazi Germany. Even more to the point, Stalin's victory over
Hitler has provided a kind of moral shield for China, even under Deng, inspiring fear of
losing a general war. If Bukharin had beaten Stalin, we can be as sure as any hypothetical
can be, the USSR would have been defeated, not victorious. In modern China, the Bukharin won.
There is an excellent chance the national government of today's China will be defeated.
That article describes a 110 MW turbine that has now finally been put into production
(while Siemens, General Electric etc. produce utility-class gas turbines up to about 600 MW,
with far higher efficiency and most likely reliability). The article further describes 40 GW
of thermal electrical production to be "modernized" until 2031 (11 years from now), and
apparently a microscopic 2 GW of new capacity from "domestic and localized" 65 MW turbines to
be commissioned 2026-2028. (I don't understand Russian so I had to rely on Yandex's machine
translation.) That's admittedly some kind of progress, but is simply not going to cut it.
Nowhere close.
Imagine if China set the ambition to build its own semiconductors and its own turbofans
for its stealth fighters sometime around 2040. Imagine if China was still producing a third
of the amount of electricity of the United States instead of about double, etc., and
considered this to be adequate. It would be akin to abandoning its ambitions for
technological and industrial independence from the West, and that is exactly what Russia is
doing in the realm of gas turbines. There is apparently no capability and no seriousness
going into translating Russia's world-class research and science into actual large-scale,
modern industrial production, and everything points to this continuing, while you can blather
on all you want about people with "Western education" simply not getting anything.
That's admittedly some kind of progress, but is simply not going to cut it. Nowhere close.
That's admittedly you switching on "I am dense" mode and trying to up the ante with 600
MW, which are a unique product, while you somehow miss the point that 110 MWt MGT-110 of
fully Russian production has completed a full cycle of industrial tests and operations (an
equivalent of military IOC--Initial Operational Capability) and is in a serial production.
But instead of studying the issue (even if through Yandex translate) with Siemens which when
learning about MGT-110 offered Russia 100% localization with technology transfer, Russians
declined, you go into generalizations without having even minimal set of facts and
situational awareness. In fact 110 MWt turbines are most in demand product for a variety of
applications. Get acquainted with this.
I am not going to waste my time explaining to you (you will play dense again) what IOC
means and how it relates to serial production, I am sure you will find a bunch of unrealted
"argumentation".
Imagine if China
I don't need to imagine anything, as well as draw irrelevant parallels with China.
There is apparently no capability and no seriousness going into translating Russia's
world-class research and science into actual large-scale, modern industrial production, and
everything points to this continuing, while you can blather on all you want about people
with "Western education" simply not getting anything.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Hollow declarations by people who can not even
develop basic factual base.
It's great to see you here with your excellent facts and perspectives on Russia. I'm sorry
you have to deal with people whose minds are too small to grasp the immense scale of Russia -
scale in physical size, civilizational depth and importance to the balance of power in the
world.
Russia alone stopped the creeping gray hegemony from the west that had looked like it
would just ooze over the whole world and suffocate it in bullshit and tribute payments. And
then China joined in the fun. The world has a future now, when a decade ago this didn't seem
possible, at least from my view in the US. Geopolitically, Russia gave us this future, and
China has come to show us how much fun it's going to be.
@ Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 18 2020 20:05 utc | 127
There's no mysticism here because we know how the kulaks emerged in Russia: they were the
result of the catastrophic capitalist reforms of the 1860s, which completely warped the old
feudal relations of the Russian Empire.
The reforms of the 1860s were catastrophic for two reasons:
1) it freed the peasants slowly. The State serfs - the last who gained their freedom -
were left with no land. A complex partition system of the land, based on each administrative
region, created a distorted division of land, where very few peasants got huge chunks of land
(the future kulaks) and most received almost nothing (as Lenin demonstrated, see his first
book of his Complete Works, below the rate of subsistence);
2) it tried to preserve the old feudal privileges and powers of the absolutist
monarchy.
As a result, the Russian Empire had a bizarre economic system, a mixed economy with the
worst of the two words: the inequality and absolute misery of capitalism and the backwardness
and lack of social mobility of feudalism.
But yes, you're right when you state Mao's era was not an economic failure. His early era
really saw an attempt by the CCP to make an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie", and
this alliance was indeed a failure. This certainly led to a more radical approach by the CCP,
still in the Mao era (collectivization). Life quality in China greatly increased after 1949,
until the recession of the Great Leap Forward (which was not a famine, but threw back some
socioeconomic indicators temporarily back to the WWII era). When the Great Leap Forward was
abandoned, China continued to improve afterwards.
All of this doesn't change the fact that China's "NEP" was a success, while the original
NEP wasn't. Of course, there are many factors that explain this, but it is wrong to call late
Qing China as even similar to the late Romanov Russia.
I'm not saying Stalin's reform were a failure. Without them, they wouldn't be able to
quickly import the Fordist (Taylorist) method they needed to industrialize. The USSR became a
superpower in just 19 years - a world record. The first Five-Year Plan was a huge morale
boost and success for the Soviet people - specially because it happened at the same time as
the capitalist meltdown of 1929.
--//--
@ Posted by: Eric | Oct 18 2020 20:53 utc | 128
The thing with semiconductors (and other very advanced technologies) is that it is an
industry that only makes sense for a given nation to dominate if they're going to mass
produce it. That usually means said production must be export oriented, which means competing
against already well-established competitors.
China doesn't want to drain the State's coffers to fund an industry that won't at least
pay for itself. It has to change the wheels with the car moving. That's why it is still
negotiating the Huawei contracts in the West first, why it still is trying to keep the
Taiwanese product flowing first, only to then gradually start the heavy investment needed to
dominate the semiconductor technology and production process.
They learned with the Soviets in this sense. When computers became a thing in the West,
the USSR immediately poured resources to build them. They were able to dominate the main
frame technology, and they were successfully implemented in their economy. Then came the
personal computers, and, this time, the Soviets weren't able to make it integrate in their
economy. The problem wasn't that the Soviets didn't know how to build a personal computer
(they did), but that every new technology is born for a reason, and only makes sense in a
given social context. You can't just blindly copy your enemy's technology and hope for the
best.
The world has a future now, when a decade ago this didn't seem possible, at least from my
view in the US. Geopolitically, Russia gave us this future, and China has come to show us
how much fun it's going to be. Many thanks to you and your people.
Thank you for your kind words. As my personal experience (my third book is coming out
soon)shows--explaining economic reality to people who have been "educated" (that is confused,
ripped off for huge tuition and given worthless piece of paper with MBA or some "economics"
Bachelor of "Science" on it) in Western pseudo-economic "theory" that this "global"
"rules-based order" is over, is pretty much an exercise in futility. And if a catastrophe of
Boeing is any indication (I will omit here NATO's military-industrial complex)--dividends,
stocks and "capitalization" is a figment of imagination of people who never left their office
and infantile state of development and swallowed BS economic narrative hook, line and sinker
without even trying to look out of the window. They still buy this BS of US having "largest
GDP in the world" (in reality it is much smaller than that of China), the
de-industrialization of the United States is catastrophic (they never bothered to look at
2018 Inter-agency Report to POTUS specifically about that)and its industrial base is
shrinking with a lighting speed, same goes to Germany which for now retains some residual
industrial capability and competences but:
This is before COVID-19, after it Germany's economy shrank worst among Western nations,
worse even than the US. It is a long story, but as Michael Hudson stated not for once in his
books and interviews, what is "taught" as economics in the West is basically a
pseudo-science. Well, it is. Or, as same Hudson stated earlier this year:"The gunboats don't
appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn't have gun boats in them, or
the crime sector. And probably they didn't have debt in it either." And then they wonder in
Germany (or EU)how come that EU structures are filled with pedophiles, "Green" fanatics and
multiculturalists. Well, because Germany (and EU) are occupied territories who made their
choice. And this is just the start. What many do not understand here is that overwhelming
majority of Russians do not want to deal with Europe and calls for new Iron Curtain are
louder and louder and the process has started. Of course, there is a lot of both contempt and
schadenfreude on Russian part. As Napoleon stated, the nation which doesn't want to feed own
army, will feed someone else's. Very true. Modern West worked hard for it, let it "enjoy"
now.
It's good to see you commenting here as barflies seem more inclined to listen to you than
me. Did you watch Russian documentary on
The Wall , which I learned about from Lavrov's meeting with those doing business
within Russia on 5 Oct? I asked The Saker if his translation team would take on the task of
providing English subtitles or a voice over but never got a reply one way or the other. IMO,
for Russia to avoid the West's fate it must change its banking and financial system from the
private to the public realm as Hudson advocates most recently in this podcast . As for Mr.
Lavrov, he surprised the radio station interviewers by citing Semyon Slepakov's song "America
Doesn't Like Us," of which barfly Paco thankfully provided a translation of the
lyrics.С наилучшими
пожеланиями
крепкого
здоровья и
долгих лет
жизни!
I think you an Grieved misunderstand somewhat where I am coming from here. Michael Hudson
would be (and has been) the first to describe how Russia's elites (and to a large extent it
seems also the people) bought into a bogus neoliberal ideology teaching that somehow Russia
needs to earn the money it needs to build its own economy in the form of foreign currency
through export revenues. Apparently these economists and politicians in Russia never bothered
to look how Western economies actually operate (as opposed to what they preach to countries
they want to destroy), or for that matter how China has developed its economy (in all of
these countries, the necessary credit is created on a keyboard.) The export revenues that
Russia earns in the form of dollars and euros are sold to the central bank for the roubles
that Russia's government needs to function. Bizarrely, this creates just as much inflation as
it would if the central bank had just created the roubles without "backing" foreign currency.
In fact, there is more inflation created, because in times of high oil prices, corresponding
amounts of roubles are suddenly thrown into a domestic market that is underdeveloped, for
example in its infrastructure and its food processing. There are reasons why China can expand
its money supply by much greater proportions each year and still suffer far less inflation
than Russia.
Unlike China, Russia had already attained much of the technological expertise for the
equipment that it later decided it was unable to produce inside the country. A good example
of this are the turboexpanders whose design was perfected (though the basic idea was a bit
older) by Pyotr Kapisa in the 1930's in the USSR. This same technology went into the
turbopumps of the rocket engines in the Energia boosters. These engines are still to this
day, 30 years after the Soviet collapse, imported by the United States. As these rocket
engines including the turbopumps are still produced in Russia, the know-how to manufacture
was obviously not lost.
I read just the other day that as part of its import substitution program, Russia is
considering to produce the turboexpanders for processing natural gas (separating methane from
ethane) inside the country. Russia, with the world's largest natural gas reserves and
production, and as I described already possessing the expertise to produce the turboexpanders
needed for cryogenic separation, chose to hand over possibly billions of dollars to the West
to import this machinery over the years, only to be helpless when the West introduced
technological sanctions against its oil and gas sector. Very likely, in a couple of years we
will receive the announcement that the drive to produce them domestically has been abandoned,
after it was realized that their production will require new factories and new machinery,
which do not fall out of the sky in Russia as they apparently do in the West and in China.
Putin will announce that great business awaits whichever Western investor ready to provide
the funds. (Spoiler: They won't! The West is not very interested in investing into building
up Russia's industrial capabilities, preferring instead to loot its natural resources and to
suck out its skilled worked and scientists.)
While Russia sits and waits for higher oil prices or foreign dollar credit on the one
hand, and with unemployed skilled labor and rotting industrial infrastructure on the other
hand, China spends the equivalent of trillions of dollars (in yuan, obviously) into fixed
capital (not least infrastructure) each year. The funds for this are all created by
keystrokes by the PBOC and provide employment for the domestic workforce. You don't have to
ponder long on which model has been hugely successful, and which has been an unmitigated
disaster.
I can't find the exact figures right now, but Russia produces something like 300,000 STEM
graduates every year, more than the United States. (I may very well have read this originally
on your blog, by the way.) Many of them will still be forced to emigrate to find gainful
employment, even 20 years after the 1990's ended and Putin became President. These graduates
remain even in post-Soviet times of a very high quality, and undergraduate students in Russia
are trained at a higher level in mathematics and physics than in particular Americans are
even as post-graduates. By refusing to invest in its own scientific infrastructure and
industry the way China has done and does, Russia gives away all the education and training
that were provided to these students, especially to the same Western countries that are
seeking to destroy Russia. This is completely unforgivable.
I should add that I myself study physics in Germany. I have great appreciation for the
Russian methods of teaching mathematics and physics, as many do here. I have learned,
preferentially, mathematical analysis from Zorich, mechanics, electrodynamics etc. from
Landau-Lifschitz, much about Fourier series from Tolstov, and so on, and have very often been
awestruck and inspired in a mystical fashion by these works. I am not somehow unaware of the
unparalleled quality (in particular after the destruction of Germany in WWII) of the USSR's
and Russia's math/physics education or unfamiliar with the achievements of the USSR in
science and engineering. It's precisely because I am familar with them that it
frustrates me immensely how Russia's potential is needlessly wasted.
What many do not understand here is that overwhelming majority of Russians do not want to
deal with Europe and calls for new Iron Curtain are louder and louder and the process has
started. Of course, there is a lot of both contempt and schadenfreude on Russian part.
Andrei (132), do you have a link to an opinion poll that supports this? Thanks
in advance.
@ Digby | Oct 19 2020 0:28 utc | 136.. if you haven't already listened to the lavrov
interview that b linked to in his main post - it is a question and answer thing - you would
benefit from doing so and it would help answer you question some too.. see b's post at this
spot -"In a wide ranging interview with Russian radio stations" and hit that link
@ james (137)
Well, I looked into the interview. While it is informative in its own right (at some point it
briefly touches on Russo-Japanese relations), and some of the interviewers do show some
concerns, I'm still not sure how it helps answer my question (maybe I missed something?). My
initial impression was that Mr. Martyanov was referring to Russian civilians - not just radio
interviewers.
Thanks anyway for the heads up.
@ 138 digby... my impression was the radio interviewers questions were a reflection of the
general sentiment of the public.. i could be wrong, but it seems to me they have completely
given up on the west based on what they ask and say in their questions to lavrov...
on another note, you might enjoy engaging andrei more directly on his website which i will
share here...
"... Russia is militarily secure and the 'west' knows that. It is one reason for the anti-Russian frenzy. Russia does not need to bother with the unprecedented hostility coming from Brussels and Washington. It can ignore it while taking care of its interests. ..."
"... 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 nightmare scenario for the Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game over! ..."
"... They don't want an actual war. They just ratchet up the tensions to keep Europe subdued and obedient and Russia off balance and thereby prevent any rapprochement between the two. ..."
"... The strong hatred and hostility coming from the US and the EU are due to the understanding that they don't have much time, and they must act now, or tomorrow it will be too late. ..."
"... Years ago Barack Obama gave speech to West Point graduates, proclaiming US moral and racial superiority (because they mix'n's*it) over whole world, Goebbels would be proud. Germany has long history of hating all those Slavs, and Israel... Lets not go there with how they threat those inferior brown people. ..."
"... Of course that end-point is money for military contractors and power for the FP elite in government and think-tanks which also means money. Yes, there are true-believers who see a mighty struggle between "good" (the USA) an "evil" (Russia/China) but they are incompetent. As for the American people they will believe whatever the NY Times says since they are militantly ignorant of history, geography, foreign affairs in general, and, above all, political science. ..."
"... The USA is lucky the USSR collapsed in 1991. If it managed to somehow survive for mere 17 years more, it would catch the 2008 capitalist meltdown ..."
"... It looks like the USA imported the Irish and imported their luck, too. ..."
"... This loathing was made blatantly manifest during WWII, of course, but it didn't die out because that generation and more likely their children remain with us. Ditto the generational Anglo-American hatred of Russians (yes, for the UK, and their haute bourgeoisie, it has deeper historical roots than the 20thC) and the USSR even more... ..."
"... "Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy supply 'here in Europe', saying that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the world's second largest importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis] ..."
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
"... At the time, I thought it was just Trump and his followers freaking out, now I think it's the NatSec people, who have finally seen the truth of their situation. As one can see in the Atlantic Council piece B posted, they are still trying to keep the old narrative patched together too. ..."
"... As I've said numerous times -- Fuck the US Empire and it's minion bitches. Jesse Ventura commented this past week that EVERY US Incumbent politician should be voted out of office this election. 99% of them are scum. ..."
"... That was the whole point of the first Cold War. It is the whole point of creating a Cold War 2.0. Absolutely nothing has changed. ..."
"... If the Russian Federation really has an ongoing imports substitution program, then this explains everything. Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the Russian economy in the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with cheap commodities to feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil. ..."
"... A Russia that also exports high-value commodities (manufactured commodities) is a direct threat to Germany, as it competes with it directly in the international market. That's the reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe, as Merkel once said: Europe must not become China's peninsula. China is Germany's main competitor, as it is also a big manufacturing exporter. ..."
"... Perhaps the US only has one script in the playbook: to balkanise, disrupt and foster 5th columns until their opponent becomes a dysfunctional or failed state. ..."
"... The US and EU attempts to break Russia's independent foreign policy are just stepping stones to the eventual goal of a breakup Russia itself, never forget Albright's comments in the 90s about how Siberia shouldn't belong to Russia alone. ..."
"... We may yet see a Cuban missile crisis scenario but it looks more likely to be caused by arms sales to Taiwan than conflict in the Caucasus. ..."
"... I also think its naive to see these as "fires burning at Russia's borders" instead of as deliberately set bear traps . Azerbaijan is in a strategic location between Russia and Iran and the conflict with Armenia comes just before Russia is about to sell advanced weapons to Iran. ..."
Over the last years the U.S. and its EU puppies have ratcheted up their pressure on Russia.
They seem to believe that they can compel Russia to follow their diktat. They can't. But the
illusion that Russia will finally snap, if only a few more sanctions ar applied or a few more
houses in Russia's neighborhood are set on fire, never goes away.
The fires burning at Russia's borders in the Caucasus are an add-on to the disorder and
conflict on its Western border in neighboring Belarus, where fuel is poured on daily by
pyromaniacs at the head of the European Union acting surely in concert with Washington.
Yesterday we learned of the decision of the European Council to impose sanctions on
President Lukashenko, a nearly unprecedented action when directed against the head of state
of a sovereign nation.
...
It is easy enough to see that the real intent of the sanctions is to put pressure on the
Kremlin, which is Lukashenko's guarantor in power, to compound the several other measures
being implemented simultaneously in the hope that Putin and his entourage will finally crack
and submit to American global hegemony as Europe did long ago.
...
The anti-Russia full tilt ahead policy outlined above is going on against a background of the
U.S. presidential electoral campaigns. The Democrats continue to try to depict Donald Trump
as "Putin's puppy," as if the President has been kindly to his fellow autocrat while in
office. Of course, under the dictates of the Democrat-controlled House and with the
complicity of the anti-Russian staff in the State Department, in the Pentagon, American
policy towards Russia over the entire period of Trump's presidency has been one of never
ending ratcheting up of military, informational, economic and other pressures in the hope
that Vladimir Putin or his entourage would crack. Were it not for the nerves of steel of Mr.
Putin and his close advisers , the irresponsible pressure policies outlined above could
result in aggressive behavior and risk taking by Russia that would make the Cuban missile
crisis look like child's play.
The U.S. arms industry lobby, in form of the Atlantic Council, confirms
the 'western' strategy Doctorow describes. It calls for 'ramping up on Russia' with even more
sanctions:
Key to raising the costs to Russia is a more proactive transatlantic strategy for sanctions
against the Russian economy and Putin's power base, together with other steps to reduce
Russian energy leverage and export revenue. A new NATO Russia policy should be pursued in
tandem with the European Union (EU), which sets European sanctions policy and faces the same
threats from Russian cyberattacks and disinformation. At a minimum, EU sanctions resulting
from hostilities in Ukraine should be extended, like the Crimea sanctions, for one year
rather than every six months. Better yet, allies and EU members should tighten sanctions
further and extend them on an indefinite basis until Russia ends its aggression and takes
concrete steps toward de-escalation.
It also wants Europe to pay for weapons in the Ukraine and Georgia:
A more dynamic NATO strategy for Russia should go hand in hand with a more proactive policy
toward Ukraine and Georgia in the framework of an enhanced Black Sea strategy. The goal
should be to boost both partners' deterrence capacity and reduce Moscow's ability to
undermine their sovereignty even as NATO membership remains on the back burner for the time
being.
As part of this expanded effort, European allies should do more to bolster Ukraine and
Georgia's ground, air, and naval capabilities, complementing the United States' and Canada's
efforts that began in 2014.
The purpose of the whole campaign against Russia, explains the Atlantic Council author, is
to subordinate it to U.S. demands:
Relations between the West and Moscow had begun to deteriorate even before Russia's watershed
invasion of Ukraine, driven principally by Moscow's fear of the encroachment of Western
values and their potential to undermine the Putin regime. With the possibility of a further
sixteen years of Putin's rule, most experts believe relations are likely to remain
confrontational for years to come. They argue that the best the United States and its allies
can do is manage this competition and discourage aggressive actions from Moscow. However, by
pushing back against Russia more forcefully in the near and medium term, allies are more
likely to eventually convince Moscow to return to compliance with the rules of the liberal
international order and to mutually beneficial cooperation as envisaged under the 1997
NATO-Russia Founding Act.
The 'rules of the liberal international order' are of course whatever the U.S. claims they
are. They may change at any moment and without notice to whatever new rules are the most
convenient for U.S. foreign policy.
But as Doctorow said above, Putin and his advisors stay calm and ignore such trash despite
all the hostility expressed against them.
One of Putin's close advisors is of course Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. In a
wide
ranging interview with Russian radio stations he recently touched on many of the issues
Doctorow also mentions. With regards to U.S. strategy towards Russia Lavrov diagnoses
:
Sergey Lavrov : [...] You mentioned in one of your previous questions that no matter what we
do, the West will try to hobble and restrain us, and undermine our efforts in the economy,
politics, and technology. These are all elements of one approach.
Question : Their national security strategy states that they will do so.
Sergey Lavrov : Of course it does, but it is articulated in a way that decent people can
still let go unnoticed, but it is being implemented in a manner that is nothing short of
outrageous.
Question : You, too, can articulate things in a way that is different from what you would
really like to say, correct?
Sergey Lavrov : It's the other way round. I can use the language I'm not usually using to
get the point across. However, they clearly want to throw us off balance , and not only by
direct attacks on Russia in all possible and conceivable spheres by way of unscrupulous
competition, illegitimate sanctions and the like, but also by unbalancing the situation near
our borders, thus preventing us from focusing on creative activities. Nevertheless,
regardless of the human instincts and the temptations to respond in the same vein, I'm
convinced that we must abide by international law.
Russia does not accept the fidgety 'rules of the liberal international order'. Russia
sticks to the law which is, in my view, a much stronger position. Yes, international law often
gets broken. But as Lavrov
said elsewhere , one does not abandon traffic rules only because of road accidents.
Russia stays calm, no matter what outrageous nonsense the U.S. and EU come up with. It can
do that because it knows that it not only has moral superiority by sticking to the law but it
also has the capability to win a fight. At one point the interviewer even jokes
about that :
Question : As we say, if you don't listen to Lavrov, you will listen to [Defense Minister]
Shoigu.
Sergey Lavrov : I did see a T-shirt with that on it. Yes, it's about that.
Yes, it's about that. Russia is militarily secure and the 'west' knows that. It is one
reason for the anti-Russian frenzy. Russia does not need to bother with the unprecedented
hostility coming from Brussels and Washington. It can ignore it while taking care of its
interests.
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?
Posted by b on October 17, 2020 at 16:31 UTC | Permalink
thanks b.... that lavrov interview that karlof1 linked to previously is
worth its weight in gold...
it gives a clear understanding of how russia sees what is
happening here on the world stage... as you note cheap talk from the atlantic council 'rules
of the liberal international order' is no substitute for 'international law' which is what
russia stands on.... as for the usa campaign to tar russia and claim trump is putins puppet..
apparently this stupidity really sells in the usa.. in fact, i have a close friend here in
canada from the usa with family in the usa has bought this hook, line and sinker as well..
and he is ordinarily a bright guy!
as for the endpoint - the usa and the people of the usa don't mind themselves about
endpoints... it is all about being in the moment, living a hollywood fantasy off the ongoing
party of wall st... the thought this circus will end, is not something many of them
contemplate.. that is what it looks like to me.. maga, lol...
Belarus - this is happenstance, not long term planning. Like Venezuela - indeed neither
original Presidential candidate nor his wife had a Wikipedia entry a week or so before being
announced as candidate (much like Guaido 2 weeks before Trump "made" him President.
Yes the Western media make the most of it, and yes there are many in place in and besides the
media whose job it is to maximise any noise. But little is happening in Belarus. Sanctioning
is all anyone can do now. (Sanctions = punishment therefore proof of guilt without trial or
evidence).
US pressure is based on the Dem vs Rep "I am tougher on Russia than you" game spurred on
by the MIC.
European pressure is based on the Euro Defence force concept and a low key but real desire to
rid itself of Nato. So again we have Nato saying "without US/us Europe would be soft on
Russia" and Europe saying we are tough on Russia whatever.
What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
It is about driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. The nightmare scenario for the
Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game
over!
They don't want an actual war. They just ratchet up the tensions to keep Europe subdued
and obedient and Russia off balance and thereby prevent any rapprochement between the
two.
Putin has repeatedly stated he wants a Lisbon to Vladivostok free trade area.
The Anglo-Americans will never permit that. That Europe is committed to a course that is
against their own best interest shows just how subservient they are to the
Anglo-Americans.
I think it was the first head of NATO that said the purpose of the organization is to
"keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the US in"
There is no endpoint. Those who argue for it, the Western think-tank industry and security
and intelligence industry, are recipients of huge sums of money. It is bread and butter for
large numbers of people. And the acceptance of the conclusions and advice of the immense
stacks of papers thus produced mean money towards the defense industry and the cyber warfare
industry. In the end, all this is driven by elites' fear of their own populations. Sowing FUD
(Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) makes these populations docile. Rinse and repeat.
>>As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is.
The reason was probably the new Russian Constitution, which is basically a declaration of
independence from the West. This has caused serious triggerings in western elites, although
their reaction took some time to crystalise due to the Covid Pandemic.
>>What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?
The endpoint is - EU and NATO move into Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia, Georgia, Belarus,
Armenia.
A puppet government of someone like Navalny is installed Russia. That government further
gives up Crimea, Kaliningrad and Northen Caucasus. In the long run, a soft partition of Russia into 3 parts follows (as per the Grand
Chessboard 1997).
The possibility for that happening is overall negative, as the West is on a long term
decline, that is, it will be weaker in 2030, and even weaker in 2040 or 2050.
OECD economies were 66 % of the world economy in 2010 but that share is estimated to drop
to 38 % of the world economy in 2050 (with further drops after that).
The strong hatred and hostility coming from the US and the EU are due to the understanding
that they don't have much time, and they must act now, or tomorrow it will be too
late.
Well, the hostility in "western" "elite" (rulers) towards Russia is on much more primal level
than money and power IMO. It is pure racial hatred combined with Übermensch God complex.
Main controllers in modern "west" are US, Israel and Germany.
Years ago Barack Obama gave speech to West Point graduates, proclaiming US moral and
racial superiority (because they mix'n's*it) over whole world, Goebbels would be proud.
Germany has long history of hating all those Slavs, and Israel... Lets not go there with how
they threat those inferior brown people.
"What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
Of course that end-point is money for military contractors and power for the FP elite in
government and think-tanks which also means money. Yes, there are true-believers who see a
mighty struggle between "good" (the USA) an "evil" (Russia/China) but they are incompetent.
As for the American people they will believe whatever the NY Times says since they are
militantly ignorant of history, geography, foreign affairs in general, and, above all,
political science.
The problem as I see it is Europe generally, and Germany in particular. Why do they follow
Washington diktats?
Well let's see, the USA is $30 trillion in debt and counting, faces an upcoming economic
depression to rival the 'great' one, with a citizenry on the brink of civil war and a
political system that makes a 'banana republic' look like ancient Greece. Desperate is as
desperate does.
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?
For a very simple reason: there's no other option. Capitalism can only work in one way. There's a limit to how much capitalism can reform
within itself without self-destructing.
The West is also suffering from the "Whale in a Swimming Pool" dilemma: it has grown so
hegemonic, so big and so gloated that its strategic options have narrowed sharply. It has not
much more room for maneuver left, its bluffs become less and less effective. As a result, its
strategies have become increasingly linear, extremely predictable. The "whale in a pool
dilemma" is not a problem when your inner workings (domestic economy) is flourishing; but it
becomes one when the economy begins to stagnate and, ultimately, decline (albeit slowly).
On a side note, it's incredible how History is non-linear, full of surprises. The Russian
Federation is inferior to the Soviet Union in every aspect imaginable. Except for one factor:
it now has an ascendant China on its side in a time where the West is declining. (Historical)
context is everything.
The USA is lucky the USSR collapsed in 1991. If it managed to somehow survive for mere 17
years more, it would catch the 2008 capitalist meltdown and have an opportunity to gain the
upper hand over capitalism (plus have a strong China on its side). Socialism/communism
wouldn't have been demoralized the way it was in the 1990s, opening a huge flank for
revolutions in the Western Hemisphere (specially Latin America). NATO would be much weaker.
Since the USSR was closed to capitalism, the USA wouldn't be able to enforce as crippling
economic sanctions on China and the USSR. The USSR would be able to "reform and open up" in a
much safer environment (by copying China, instead of Yeltsin's neoliberalism), thus gaining
the opportunity to make a Perestroika that could actually work.
But it didn't happen. Well, what can I say? It looks like the USA imported the Irish and imported their luck,
too.
Abe @7 - I would agree and have raised somewhere (old age?) that part of what we are seeing
in this latest western-NATO cooked up charade re Navalny is, in part at least, a deep
historical supremacist loathing of the Slavs an in general and the Russians in particular by
the haute bourgeois Germans. This loathing was made blatantly manifest during WWII, of
course, but it didn't die out because that generation and more likely their children remain
with us. Ditto the generational Anglo-American hatred of Russians (yes, for the UK, and their
haute bourgeoisie, it has deeper historical roots than the 20thC) and the USSR even more...
The pressure on Russia is enormous and I would enlarge on the economic sanctions aspect
(siege warfare): Belarus, Armenia-Azerbaijan (Erdogan once again playing his role for the
US/NATO - in this business, Iran is also a target), Kyrgyzstan - all on or very close to
Russia's borders and thus dividing and draining (intention) Russia's focus and $$$$ (the
Brzezinski game) in order to open it up to the western corporate-capitalist bloodsuckers. And
I suspect that as the US (and UK) economies drain away, so these border country "revolts,"
"protests" etc. will grow...
Russia really needs to join with China in full comity. Bugger the west - they do not
respect the rights of either country to their own culture, societal structures, mores,
perspectives...nor apparently even those countries' rights to their own coastal waters, air
space...
One wonders how the USA would react to Chinese and/or Russian warships in the Gulf or
traversing (lengthwise) the Atlantic or Pacific????
"Maas added that Germany takes decisions related to its energy policy and energy supply 'here in Europe', saying
that Berlin accepts ' the fact that the US had more than doubled its oil imports from Russia last year and is now the
world's second largest importer of Russian heavy oil .'" [My Emphasis]
Now isn't that the interesting bit of news!! The greatest fracking nation on the planet needs to import heavy oil (likely
Iranian, unlikely Venezuelan) from its #1 adversary. As for the end game, I've written many times what I see as the goal and
don't see any need to add more.
"The Russians are coming' is a long standing fear built the American psyche almost from the
very start.
Russian colonization of the California Territory outnumbered the US population.
The Monroe Doctrine was all about that,not S.America at all. The Brits ruled S.America by
mercantile means until
WWI cut the sea lanes, then and only then did it fall into the sphere of Yankee control.
Then there is Alaska. The Sewards Folly documents are almost certainly fakes, the verified
Russian copy says a 100year LEASE,not a sale. The National Archives refuses examination by any
but its own experts. Unless they are forgeries and they know it there can be no real reason for
their stance.
There is much more background to the antipathy than many are aware.
@bjd (4) You nailed it, my friend. Cold wars are immensely profitable for certain sectors of
the economy and the parasites who run them. The supreme imperative is always to have
enemies--really big, bad, dangerous enemies--whether real or imagined. I will be voting for
Biden, but I don't have much hope for positive change in American foreign policy. Russia,
China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. will continue to be vilified as nations to be feared and hated.
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to
lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name
of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home.
After several color
revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in the US, with British
assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been limited resistance
against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0. Nevertheless,
Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions more are
dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump. The most dangerous
result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM purveyors is the
growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems, such as Schiff and
Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook and Twitter engaged
in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post and of various
Trump-related accounts. This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it
was at least in part an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond.
Even though Twitter ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment
designed to gauge reactions and areas of resistance. In November, there could be further,
more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current expansionist movements being made and
planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts of a new non-democratic model of
"American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but "rules-based."
"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?"
I think the answer is clear. The US economy is collapsing and likewise those wedded to the US
dollar system. The USA spent 90% more than it received last year.
They are desperate to have access to Russia's largely untapped resources and it doesn't want
any competition for its position as world hegemon. Thus Russia and China are in the
crosshairs.
Fortunately the corruption in the USA has resulted in a weaker military capability over time
and they are reduced to behaving in clandestine and terroristic ways to try and achieve this.
The turmoil enveloping the USA is scape goated on Trump and Covid19 but is ultimately due to
their faltering economy and a big helping of financial corruption. Talk about your chickens
coming home to roost
Sounds like thunder, all those chickens. I appeared to me that whomever is in charge here, they started pulling all the levers they
could lay a hand on a couple weeks back in terms of stirring up trouble. Throwing sand in the
eyes of ones enemy.
At the time, I thought it was just Trump and his followers freaking out, now I think it's
the NatSec people, who have finally seen the truth of their situation. As one can see in the
Atlantic Council piece B posted, they are still trying to keep the old narrative patched
together too.
Politfiction, or what could have happened if is an entertaining but futile exercise.
Everybody agrees, there was no need for the USSR to dissolve, it was like a big jackpot for
an amazed rival that rushed to declare himself the winner. The price has been high, on both
sides of the fence but of course with a lot more victims and destruction on the other side of
the fallen wall. Gorbachov a tragic figure and Yelstyn a sinister one, in spite of his being
a clown, a tragic one at that, bombing his parliament and laughing at the world together with
the degenerate Clinton, the 90's were somber indeed. The west paid its price, a self declared
victory that did not bring any benefit, the peace dividend never was, to the contrary,
military budgets never stopped growing year after year. The end of history was proclaimed, no
need to match or better the rival ideology, there is none, so proles you better stop
complaining, or else and that's where we are.
Just to repeat the obvious, for the US actually to go to war is out of the question these
days -- the US public would not tolerate the casualties. Therefore other methods have to be
found to achieve the same objectives -- the maintenance of an eternal enemy in 1984 style, to
keep up military budgets and world hegemony, neither of which are the elite ready to abandon.
Economic sanctions have been the weapon of choice in the age of Trump, but there isn't really
any other. Sometimes they are better aimed and sometimes not.
In any case I am not sure I agree that the EU is really submissive to the US in this
respect. They don't want to offend the US, and some leaders have genuinely swallowed the
Kool-Aid, but others haven't, and the continuation of Nordstream 2 is where they haven't.
Doctorow wrote "Of course, under the dictates of the Democrat-controlled House and with the
complicity of the anti-Russian staff in the State Department, in the Pentagon, American
policy towards Russia over the entire period of Trump's presidency..."
The Senate is more
important for foreign affairs and has been Republican for Trump's entire term. The House was
also Republican for half of Trump's term. Lastly the "staff" is not really able to run things
in the presence of a minimally competent administrator, at the head of the State Department,
acting under leadership of a competent, energetic president. There is no sign Doctorow is
particularly intelligent or insightful.
I have long ago lost track of where the bar's consensus on Turkey is, whether the failing
US means Erdogan must become the follower of the skilled, brave and indefatigable Putin...or
whether his sultanship is suicidally persisting in thinking Russia cannot actually deliver
anything his sultanship really needs and wants. At any rate it is entirely unclear what
"international law" Lavrov thinks supports Russia.
As to the China Russia "alliance," the difficulty is that Putin has so very little to
offer.
I can hazard a guess to answer your final question. I think corruption is probably the main
reason. Those involved in this are mostly interested in self-enrichment through the
gullibility of their societies. I don't think the stenographers and the hot-heads neo liberals
pushing for a show-down with Russia are intent on committing suicide by igniting a hot war
with Russia, but they hope that Moscow could be intimidated and surrender eventually. As you
rightly said, it is a pipe dream of course, but they get paid heavily for the hot air they
emit.
'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 quite clear: 'Global Governance, by Global Institutions under control of
the 'Globalists' (i.e. the Davos crowd).' For this, the 'Globalists' must subdue Russia.
Russia is not only blocking the 'Globalist's' plans in its own right, but, since 2013, it
has been protecting other nations from falling prey to 'Globalist' colonization (Syria,
Eastern Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Belarus, etc.). And Russia is the lynch-pin to
enable the 'Globalists' to corner China.
In addition, together with China, Russia is offering the world an alternative to
'Globalism', a 'Multi-Polar World Order' that is much more attractive than becoming a
'Globalist' vassal.
For the 'Globalists' time has become critical. They are facing revolts in their home
countries (Trump, Brexit, Gilets-Jaunes, etc.). The main source of their geo-political power,
(since they can no longer challenge Russia and China militarily) the U.S. dollar, is on the
verge of collapse as the World's reserve currency. And the economic growth of China means
that China has become the most important trading partner for most of the World's nations.
The window of opportunity for the 'Globalists' to create their 'Global Governance' system
may have already closed. But, as usual, the losers of any war are usually the last to know.
The desperation with which the 'Globalists' are fighting their last battles, against Trump,
against Russia, against Brexit, is testimony to the fact that for the 'Globalists' losing
this war means their extinction as a ruling elite.
c'mon steve.... what is the usa offering
turkey here?? they could give a rats ass about turkey, or any other country in the middle
east, excluding their 24/7 darling israel... the usa presence on the world stage is meant to
sabotage any and all who don't bow down to the exceptional nations philosophy of 'might makes
right'... the obvious benefits of russia-china synergy are apparent to both countries and
they continue to capitalize on this, in spite of what you read in the usa msm.. russia as a
lot to offer china... the fact that the nation apparently masquerading as a gas station has
so much to offer is also the reason that all the pillage of the 90's hasn't turned out the
way the harvard boys had envisioned... that you can't see the vast wealth and value of russia
has nothing to do with the reality on the ground... keep the blinders on, lol...
The EU's attitude to the US is much like its attitude to Britain and Brexit. They don't want
to split with the US, because, after all, there might be war, and NATO would be needed, but
it's becoming increasingly less likely. In the same way, they would have preferred to stay in
good relations with Britain, until Britain insisted on a hostile Brexit. Basic interests come
first, and that will also be the case in the future with the US.
Russia and China are already de-facto alliance. Militarily they cooperate at every level
and will soon extend shared anti ballistic shield over China too. It is clear to any outside
enemy (except for most retarded ones) that nuclear attack on one will be treated as attack on
both of them. Not having formal alliance is somewhat an advantage (eg. limited attack on one
of them by enemy that can be easily handled will not complicate situation) as it controls
escalation. Lack of escalation control led to WW1 so...
Apart for military, Russia is one of rare fully self sufficient countries in the world.
Having vast natural resources and territory, knowledge and industrial capacity to built
EVERYTHING they need, they can afford to be sanctioned by whole world and close borders
completely if needed. Having 100% secure land borders with China and already huge (and
increasing) trade, including oil & gas, only make Russia's self sufficiency even more
stable. It also strategically benefits China, as its main weakness is lack of those same
resources Russia has in abundance and is willing to share.
So, if sh*t hits the fan, and Russia and China say f*ck it and close borders to rest of
the world (even though China trade profits wouldn't be happy), both countries form self
sufficient symbiosis that can carry on for centuries.
Which brings me to all those little fires US is starting in Russia's neighborhood. They
don't matter. Unlike USSR, Russia's mission is self preservation only, not changing whole
world into communist utopia (even though @VK here repeatedly fails to acknowledge it). And
survive it will. All it needs is to wait few generations.
Unlike Russia, collective west is going down the drain. Soon enough, all those Slav hating
in Bundestag, UK parlament and elsewhere will have more urgent problem of Islamic head
choppers that became majority in their countries, while US will have problem to recruit
enough men,women and "others" from pool of rainbow colored too-fat and unfit, godless faggot
from broken family snowflakes.
As China has been mentioned, I think it is worth saying that although I have full confidence
that Putin will maintain his usual good sense in international conflicts, I have more doubts
about the Chinese regime. I don't really understand their policy, which is becoming more
nationalistic and edgy. I don't see why. They have great economic success; they should be
more relaxed, but they aren't. The first signs came with their attitude towards the Muslims
in China. One, the concentration camps in Xinjiang - in that case the Uyghur jihadists in Syria
must have provoked anxiety in Beijing. But also increasing pressure on the Hui Muslims in
central China (who are native Han) to become more "national". Some years ago they weren't
bothered. Now they are.
This suggests that the question of Taiwan could blow up, apart from HongKong. They are
less tolerant in Beijing.
It is about driving a wedge between Europe and Russia. The nightmare scenario for the
Anglo-Americans is a Germany-Russia-China triangle. If that happens it is game
over!
It is a tired and false concept. There cannot be a "triangle" which includes Germany, due
to Germany's increasingly diminishing status. Moreover, Russians do not view Europe as a
viable part of Russia's future--the cultural gap is gigantic and continues to grow--the only
place of Europe in general, and Germany in particular, in Russian plans is that of a market
for Russia's hydrocarbons and other exports. A rather successful program of
export-substitution in Russia in the last 6 years dropped technological importance of Germany
for Russia dramatically. In some fields, such as high-power turbines made Germany irrelevant,
as Siemens learned the hard way recently.
"U.S. and its EU puppies have ratcheted up their pressure...
The 'rules of the liberal international order' are of course whatever the U.S. claims they
are. They may change at any moment and without notice to whatever new rules are the most
convenient for U.S. foreign policy."
Outstanding assessment and thank you for addressing it.
As I've said numerous times -- Fuck the US Empire and it's minion bitches. Jesse Ventura
commented this past week that EVERY US Incumbent politician should be voted out of office
this election. 99% of them are scum.
Every politician, corporate CEO Banker and Media whore, Judge, CIA filth should have a
pitchfork held to their throat and be tried for treason and war crimes. MIC/Pentagon should
be destroyed. Majority of Americans are propagandized dumbfucks. Sounds a bit like an
American Cultural Revolution is exactly the medicine.
There will come a day for reckoning and true justice, hopefully it is sooner than later.
There should be no mercy. For those committing their treasonous crimes, they know better but
have chosen poorly, they should be broken.
Russia, Putin and Lavrov have remained the adults in the room while the Empire Brats
tantrum themselves.
Anyone else notice that the Anti-Russia rhetoric increased after Snowden was trapped in
Russia?
I agree with Ike and others who think the US money situation is the problem. But I also
think that the underlying endpoint is hyperinflation, not just the loss of the dollars'
"reserve status." Hyperinflation is when so much "money" has been produced that it no longer
has any value and the Central Bank cannot control what comes next.
There is a point at which people want to get rid of dollars and panic buy or "invest" in
assets, or anything solid or simply anything (Gold, land etc. bread) At which time the money
they want to get rid of looses value continuously, as others don't want it either. A Rush for
the exits happens.
Who has the MOST money - the Rich and the sovereign Nations? (Althought the latter may
also be in the same situation as the US.) Russia has more or less got rid of all it's US
holdings. The Chinese must be alarmed by the thought of the Fed issuing ONLY new-digicoins,
and then the US simply refusing to pay debts to the Chinese at some future point. They might
want out now. Not so much dumping everything but a steady reduction of US denominated
"assets" or reserves.
Most of this becomes self-sustaining panic, as happened in the Weimar Rep. What can be
considered "assets" to grab? ie Russia, minerals and it's Gold, China and its Gold. Then the
choice might be to invest in the US military and use it while there is a residue of belief in
the Dollar.
The only thing about a panic exit is that it happens very quickly. About a month or two
between when the first bright sparks try to get out and when everyone else tries to grab part
of a rapidly restricted choice of things to buy with an unending pile of "empty" dollars.
Germany should've been conquered by the Soviet Union entirely as it was won with Soviet,
largely Russian, blood. Germany is increasingly irrelevant to Russia's needs now as Martyanov
points out above. Germany's existence today should be that of a Russian oblast, same with
Eastern Ukraine from Kharkiv to Mariupol and Belarus.
Ask yourself what Germany produces that Russia can't produce for itself with import
substitution schemes or similar schemes within a 10 year period. Russia's GDP by PPP is the
size of Germany's already and depending on how it deals with the impact of COVID, may
continue an upward year-on-year growth trend (People's Republic of China is the only major
economy forecast to expand in fiscal quarter this year). The fact of the matter is that
Russia's population is much larger, its industrial base, at least in heavy industry, is
nearly self sufficient (not much light industry to speak of) and Germany depends on Russian
oil and gas to keep its lights on. Russia can carry on without Germany just fine. There may
be a noticeable impact now if Russia were cornered into doing that, but it's nothing that
can't be overcome in short order.
Thank you, b, and before reading comments, I will give my take on your last question:
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 whole 'rules based order' became very clear when the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP,
was being debated,and what happened then is what many have noted, the 'rules' were all to
advantage the US. So, you might say that was the beginning of the end for the oligarchy. And
the partnership reformed after it had taken out that problem, to be fair to all participants.
All the oligarchy can do is keep on keeping on until it can't. This is really about survival
for that class of individuals who intend to keep on being in charge here in the US and
wherever its tentacles have reached. The only endpoint they see is their continuance. And I
suppose their fear is that it is simply not possible for that to be the case.
Hopefully there will just come a point where, as in Plato's Republic, the dialogue simply
moves on. There, it begins in the home of the ancient one, Cephalus, with a polite
discussion, and the old man says his piece, to which Socrates responds:
"What you say is very fine indeed, Cephalus...but as to this very thing, justice, shall
we so simply assert that it is the truth and giving back what a man has taken from another,
or is to do these very things sometimes just and sometimes unjust? Take this case as an
example of what I mean: everyone would surely say that if a man takes weapons from a friend
when the latter is of sound mind, and the friend demands them back when he is mad, one
shouldn't give back such things, and the man who gives them back would not be just, and
moreover, one should not be willing to tell someone in this state the whole truth."
"What you say is right," he said.
[Allan Bloom translation]
In the dialogue, the old man leaves to 'look after the sacrifices', handing down the
argument to his heir, Polymarchus. To me, Socrates has adroitly caused this to come about in
much the fashion that Lavrov answers his press questioners in the link b provides. That is,
he has done so with diplomacy, and a lesson to his younger companions which perhaps Cephalus
is no longer able to understand. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yet in your disparaging comments of Europe and Germany in particular you proceed to show
how successful the Anglo-Americans have been in creating a wedge between Europe and Russia
actually validating my original point.
"Keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the US in"
That was the whole point of the first Cold War. It is the whole point of creating a Cold War 2.0. Absolutely nothing has changed.
By whom exactly? US & several euro puppets? Typical racist thinking that Europe and
its former colonies are somehow "the world" or "the international community".
Meanwhile opinion of Russia is positive in India (1,3 billion people, more than the whole
West combined) and China (1,4 billion, more than the whole West combined).
Those who don't spend for their own weapons, spend for their master's weapons (like
europuppets).
Btw your master (US) spends on weapons too. What are you going to do about it?
As was rightly pointed out in that discussion, British foreign policy towards Europe was
to ensure that no single power was to be allowed to achieve hegemony over Europe. The famous
"balance of power"
@ Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 17 2020 19:41 utc | 36
If the Russian Federation really has an ongoing imports substitution program, then this
explains everything. Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the Russian economy in
the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with cheap commodities to
feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil.
A Russia that also exports high-value commodities (manufactured commodities) is a direct
threat to Germany, as it competes with it directly in the international market. That's the
reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe, as Merkel once said: Europe must not
become China's peninsula. China is Germany's main competitor, as it is also a big
manufacturing exporter.
Unlike China, Russia lacks the weight of population and reliance on the globalist capitalist
system to throw around, China will not shut itself up for Russia when it can trade with EU
& Turkey instead.
Russia is increasingly put into weak position, where Russian troops are sent to do the
dying, while the Chinese business whoop in afterwards to get all the juicy business deals. In
other words, Russia does the dying while China enriches itself.
Russia only hope is that it becomes friendly with the EU, otherwise, it is going to be
crushed between two superpowers, the EU and China.
I think the point of the sanctions and all the pressure on Russia is an appeal to Russian
elite, Just a reminder that they are isolated from the rest of the elite and hope that it
would help them throw Russian nationalists from power. I think this might succeed as Putin
did no really take on the new Russian capitalist class, and that will probably be his
undoing.
@vk 36 That's the reason Germany doesn't want the BRI to come to Europe
BRI in Europe - 16 countries:
Austria*, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine
* shaky
SCMP - Aug 17, 2020:
China's rail shipments to Europe set records as demand surges for Chinese goods amid
coronavirus
> July saw 1,232 cargo trains travel from Chinese cities to European destinations –
the most ever in a single month > Once regarded as merely ornamental, freight service along belt and road trade routes has
become increasingly important as exporters turn to railway transport. . .
here
Lavrov, Shoigu and Putin are calm, but the domestic economic situation is not.
While I have noted before that Russia is better positioned to survive low oil prices than
Saudi Arabia - it doesn't mean this is fun.
Couple that with COVID-19 economic losses, and stresses on the domestic Russian economy are
enormous.
Among other signs: after bouncing around in the 60s for some time, the ruble just hit 80 to
the USD. Anecdotally, I am hearing a lot of direct personal accounts of businesses not being
able to pay their people because their own customers aren't paying.
Russia has done relatively little extra to assist with COVID-19 related economic harms, so
this isn't great either.
@ laguerre -- The interview with Pepe Escobar deals with the whole range of issues in the
hybrid war against China, but the information you're looking for Regarding the suppression
and re-education of Muslim terrorists starts just past the 1-hour point.
the Chinese regime. I don't really understand their policy, which is becoming more
nationalistic and edgy.
No, it's become more multi-national and sensible. Take the BRI: Launched in 2013, it was
initially planned to revive ancient Silk Road trade routes between Eurasia and China, but the
scope of the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) has since extended to cover 138 countries,
including 38 in sub-Saharan Africa and 18 in Latin America and the Caribbean.
they should be more relaxed
China has been an open target for the US, which doesn't even mention China any more (Pompeo)
but dumps on the "CCP" (Chinese Communist Party). China (like Russia) has not responded in
kind.
their attitude towards the Muslims in China
The US State Dept slash CIA has been fomenting terrorism in Xinjiang for years and China has
had to contend with it.
the question of Taiwan could blow up
Taiwan like some other places in the world, including Hong Kong, has been another place where
the US has fomented instability. This has increased recently with Taiwan "president" Tsai
declaring that Taiwan (January this year, BBC interview) is a separate country, which it
isn't. China is being pushed to do his Abe Lincoln thing and save the union.
They are less tolerant in Beijing
Chinese by nature are tolerant, and Beijing has been tolerant in the face of US naval fleets
and bomber visits in their near seas, plus political attacks, sanctions and tariffs.
66 watch what they do and have done and not what they.
Construction started four years ago on enlarging and modernization of the railway marshaling
yards in Duisburg.
The volume of Chinese freight trains arriving daily is already quite amazing and planned to
increase to one every hour next month 24/7.They are not returning empty. The oil and gas
pipeline corridors also had ten plus railway tracks built alongside .Germany is already at the
center of the BRI expansion into Germany and it started four years ago.
@ Posted by: H.Schmatz | Oct 17 2020 21:40 utc | 60
That's why Germany is not full anti-China.
--//--
@ Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 17 2020 22:12 utc | 66
Just because Germany doesn't want it, it doesn't mean it's not getting.
--//--
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 17 2020 22:18 utc | 67
I agree. Capitalism is a dead end for Russia. It's all about when Putin dies. After he dies, it will be a coin flip for Russia: it could
continue its course or it could get another Yeltsin.
Germany being against BRI is news to me. Any proof? And it is very unlikely that China will be able to fool the europeans lile the
american. The EU has regulations and aren't purely about profit.
Perhaps the US only has one script in the playbook: to balkanise, disrupt and foster 5th
columns until their opponent becomes a dysfunctional or failed state. Then send in the
acronyms (IMF etc), establish a provisional administration under trusted local elites but
commandeer resource-rich areas under direct provincial command. That's US imperialism and it
won't stop until they encounter opposition effective enough to resist it. That's why they'll
never forgive Putin for Syria. In the end they want to finish doing to Russia (by other
means...) what the Germans began in '41; and not just Russia, but anywhere their markets are
prevented from calling the shots.
thank you, @72. the chinese learned much from their century of humiliation & clearly one
of the important lessons was trade both ways, rather than take their silver, sell them tea,
silks & porcelain & need nothing they offered.
That's an excellent observation, and a concept I had not encountered before. Thank you.
How consciously China holds that narrative, if at all, I couldn't say.
But it's a great dynamic - kind of like keeping your enemies close. And if the German
increase in reciprocal railroad trade with China is as it was stated up-thread, it would seem
to be working.
@78, thank you, grieved...i've long admired you. in times such as these it can be a challenge
to keep sight of the positive but as china prospers & wishes her trading partners to as
well, & so long as russia continues to strive toward the high road rather than descend to
the barroom floor perhaps we can also learn to rise...i'm reminded of a sufi saying: 'rise in
love do not fall'. may we all.
Do they even think about an endpoint? Is it really on their radar?
Or is this all being done because they are spoilt, and are throwing a tantrum because they
aren't getting their way?
I assume that there are sober heads in the Pentagon that wargame possible "endpoints". If
not sober at the beginning then sober when the results play out to their bitter end.
Or... maybe not. Post-retirement board seats are at stake, dammit! Full steam ahead and
damn the torpedoes!
I'm truly astonished that you don't know the truth of Xinjaing - in sum, that the
concentration camps are a huge lie that can be revealed as such by any satellite, and that
China has developed a progressive and worthy solution to the foreign-provoked terrorism
within its border.
Fortunately, Qiao Collective, a great expert source on China, has recently compiled a
treasure trove of links to know the truth:
Based on a handful of think tank reports and witness testimonies, Western governments
have levied false allegations of genocide and slavery in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
A closer look makes clear that the politicization of China's anti-terrorism policies in
Xinjiang is another front of the U.S.-led hybrid war on China.
This resource compilation provides a starting point for critical inquiry into the
historical context and international response to China's policies in Xinjiang, providing a
counter-perspective to misinformation that abounds in mainstream coverage of the autonomous
region.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Oct 17 2020 19:41 utc | 36
Andrei
A good justification on Russian German transitional relation, and we hope Russia is not
fooled again, by hopes. Those of us who hope for containing and reducing western dominance
over the world affairs, politics and economy, hope that Russians have learned from their
experience of the 90's joining G7, seat at NATO, joining western sanctions on smaller powers,
etc. all those efforts were the carrots thrown at Russia to tame the bear, one would think up
to Georgian war, it worked, that war perhaps woke the bear. Russians felt they are part of
Europe,part of western community of privileged nations (first world) but all that was a decoy
to move the NATO to Russian borders. I hope Russians once for all have learned, as long as
they have a big modern military and plenty of energy resources that is not under the western
(you read US) control they will never be accepted as a "western" country, Ironically, Russia
is the largest European country.
As a strategist you know better than most to circumvent western power and to bring back
the rule of international law, it would be impossible without having the Russian defensive
political and military power (as in Syria) on the side of resistance. We just hope you are
right Russia, will not be bought out again. IMO as you say, is just impossible for Germany,
or even France to decouple from the US grip on europe.
Seems to me its been terribly effective.
Russian economy pretty weak heavily reliant on raw materials, fracturing at the periphery.
China and Russia seem less than alies.
Seems US has Germany, France by the short hairs.
US had to bail them out in 2009.
Europe is having some problems with solvency and cohesion - whats a bureaucrat to do?
Its not really about the sovereigns, that's only for appearances.
@ 77
The Century of Humiliation from 1842 to 1949 and the contemporary discourse around it are a
driving narrative of contemporary Chinese history, foreign policy, and militarization of its
surrounding regions like the South China Sea. The expansion of the Chinese navy in numbers,
mission, and aggression is directly fueled by China's previous weakness and exploitation at
the hands of western nations. . . .
here
The US economy is definitely in trouble, but the US has spent roughly $2 trillion this year
to help its economy = a bit under 10% of 2019 GDP.
The difference is structural. The US economy is a service one - and lockdowns are literally
the best way to damage it.
The Russian economy is still heavily dependent on natural gas and oil sales. Despite the
initial devaluation, ongoing low oil prices plus increasing competition in natural gas (for
example, Azerbaijan is now selling natural gas to Italy) is hurting its economy.
Nor has Russia spent much to compensate for COVID-19 losses beyond its existing health and
social safety nets - the Russian plan was $73B / 5 trillion rubles = 4.3% of 2019 GDP.
I am anti-war and I am an anti-war crimes liberal (examples of war crimes: ethnic cleansing,
proof of genocide, torture, collective punishment via deprivation and occupation of
dispossessed land). Yet, I am also a non-interventionist except in extreme circumstances but
I am against regime change for the sake of neutralizing competing powers or converting them
religiously or politically.
All this implies exercising the highest integrity and blocking out all external influence
and pressure if one is a true liberal, and relying solely on conscience and wisdom.
Therefore, I don't like the term liberal sullied and usurped by fake liberals,
neoliberals and Zionist liberals, and I also take offense to the way liberal as a
general term is denigrated in this article.
Germany is an exports-oriented economy. It wants to integrate with the
Russian economy in the sense to keep it as an agrarian-extrativist economy to feed it with
cheap commodities to feed their industry. Germany's ideal Russia is Brazil.
True, it was about 10 years ago. Economic reality, of course, is such that Germany already
beat the record by consecutive 20 months of real economy shrinkage. In general, Germany's
energy policy is suicidal and Russia is increasingly independent from imports.
A lot to be
done in the future yet, of course, but as the whole comedy with high-power turbines and
Siemens demonstrated, Russia can do it on her own, plus General Electric is always there,
sanctions or no sanctions. It is a complicated matter, but it is Germany which increasingly
becomes irrelevant for Russia as an old image of technologically-advanced Germans getting
their hands on Russia's resources and ruling the world--this image is utterly obsolete,
completely false and doesn't correspond to the reality "on the ground".
It is really a simple
thing which many Westerners cannot wrap their brains around, that the country which has a
space program which operates ISS and second fully operational global satellite navigation
constellation, or which produces hypersonic weapons and whose shipbuilding dwarfs that of
Germany will have relatively little troubles in developing other crucial industries and
removing Western interests from those. Simple as that.
@90 Very true. Every time I read someone proclaiming that the Russian economy is no bigger
than Italy's, or Spain's, or ..... (fill in the blanks) I simply think to myself: "This word,
I do not think it means what you think it means".
Because it should be obvious to everyone that Italy can not produce all the things that
Russia produces.
Equally, Spain can not produce all the things that Russia produces.
So if someone has measured "economy" in such a way that the numbers for Russia are the
same as the number for Italy - or Spain - is simply admitting that their economic models are
flawed.
The US and EU attempts to break Russia's independent foreign policy are just stepping stones
to the eventual goal of a breakup Russia itself, never forget Albright's comments in the 90s
about how Siberia shouldn't belong to Russia alone.
Ultimately, though the US and EU nation
states are nothing more than tools of the globalist elite whose dream of a fully economically
integrated world where the power of labour is completely crushed by the power of capital to
move instantly across the planet is already falling apart. The economic elite have already
pillaged all of the minor nations in the world and the two grand prizes, Russia and China are
too powerful to attack directly now. unable to control their unbridled greed they've begone
the process of auto-self cannibalism, destroying their own states (or killing their hosts as
Michael Huddson would say) in order to completely centralize all capital within the 0.1%.
This will make them very rich, however hundreds of millions of Americans, Australians,
Canadians, Japanese and Europeans will be impoverished in order to do this. When this is
eventually realized by the majority of the people in these states, the economic elite will be
lucky if they "just" lose everything but their lives in mass nationalization campaigns. I see
very little evidence that the Russian or Chinese states would be willing to offer safe harbour for the criminal oligarchs of the West, like London has offered to criminal Oligarchs
fleeing justice in Russia
Before posting here monetarist propaganda BS form Western "economic" sources learn to
distinguish monetary expression of product and actual product in terms of quantity and
quality.
Just to demonstrate to you: for $100,000 in a desirable place in the US you will be
able to buy a roach-infested shack in a community known for meth-labs and high crime, for
exactly the same money in Russia you will buy a superb brand-new house in a desirable
location.
To demonstrate even more, for a price of a single Columbia-class SSBN ($8 billion+)
which does not exist other than on paper yet, Russia financed and produced her 8-hulls state
of the strategic missile submarines.
UK economy is dwarfed by Russia even in accordance by
IMF and World Bank, in fact, it is, once one excludes still relevant RR and few other
manufacturers, is down right third world economy. I am not going to post here all data from
IMF, but even this can explain why you posted a BS. Anyone "counting" real economic sector in
USD and Nominal GDP has to have head examined and is probably dumbed down through "economics"
programs in Western madrasas, aka universities.
In related news, learn what Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) is and check
energy consumption and production of Germany and Russia, just for shits and giggles.
And of course, Martyanov @96 is absolutely correct - the relative values of currencies are
proved to be nothing more than the entries of bookkeepers and bankers, all "sound and fury,
signifying nothing." What matters is what the home unit of currency will buy at home.
A better question is as Andrei suggests, what does it cost for Russia to produce something
that works, as opposed to what it costs the US to produce something that doesn't work because
of theft and cost inflation in the delivery chain?
The ultimate - MAD - question that the US should ask itself is this: How much does it
cost Russia to destroy the US, compared with the cost involved for the US to destroy
Russia?
~~
The cost of living is higher in the US. The cost of doing anything is higher. But none of
that means the quality of the result is greater - I certainly don't hear anyone lately saying
the living is good, compared to what people pay for it.
Were it not for the nerves of steel of Mr. Putin and his close advisers, the
irresponsible pressure policies outlined above could result in aggressive behavior and risk
taking by Russia that would make the Cuban missile crisis look like child's play.
We may yet see a Cuban missile crisis scenario but it looks more likely to be caused by arms
sales to Taiwan than conflict in the Caucasus.
I also think its naive to see these as "fires burning at Russia's borders" instead of as
deliberately set bear traps . Azerbaijan is in a strategic location between Russia and
Iran and the conflict with Armenia comes just before Russia is about to sell advanced weapons
to Iran.
It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but
stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020,
because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be
slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to
raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
The U.S. has imposed
new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:
[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country ,
this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry
biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial
sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector.
Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's
financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of
existing U.S. sanctions.
Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:
This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an
Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging
the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future
Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the
nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump
reneged in May 2018.
The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.
The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:
Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food
& medicine.
Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.
But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers
-- who block our money -- WILL face justice.
In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will
keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.
The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be
again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out
in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products.
If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted
'values' mean nothing.
The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If
that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.
Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for
cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned
suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in
that dept has not changed.
The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent
anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As
noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular,
and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past,
deplorable, behavior.
Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in
many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I
expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers.
IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between
the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue
fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act
until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's
Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why
would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to
my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either
way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a
possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to
contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game
plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the
other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the
great zionist plan, lol...
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s
The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless,
milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century
liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the
"rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists
and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective
punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still
let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the
telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian
and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons
opver to the Houthi hands.
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.
Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the
"Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you
go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the
demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I
have seen this effective technique in action).
At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the
Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading
to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)
The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually
let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan
without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not
taking the bait.
The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the
US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the
introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding
"dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by
the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress
redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and
overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.
Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve
the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of
influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article
until I saw your piece. This Asia Times
article focuses on three key points:
- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option
for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "
- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called
PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote
the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass
American banks.
- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the
SHTA operations."
It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is.
Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and
the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the
empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe
Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity
against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in
all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the
Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek
Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews
of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO"
-- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF
1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he
Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 2017
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very
simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are
quaint.
I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all
investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.
Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though,
and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.
Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran
arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)
In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on
Iran continuing.
Yeah right.
Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24
No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and
did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue,
involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.
Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from
within.
Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to
Russia.
"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".
Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor
pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.
And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of
colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.
Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners.
This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or
obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the
contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have
been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t
differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").
So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that
they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is
no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran
conflict.
And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current
European neutrality.
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English
language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same
time worried feeling about this.
Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in
the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the
region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S.
and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling
the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions
is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons
development sites and other military and petro-state assets.
I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a
spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired
neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in
order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also
that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.
It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are
fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past"
plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against
the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western
civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...
plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1
and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with
Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire
(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the
continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young
leader of the wolf pack, the US)
plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within
globalist rethoric and rules
plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national
states
but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the
moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia,
Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape
so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who
cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality;
maybe
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing
to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the
US isn't.
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.
As far as
I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic
attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic
satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and
will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble
would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to
worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers -
suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...
Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist
lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency.
It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea
party event in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally
successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US
is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have
equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US
regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their
own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation
between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US
and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or
meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably
all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions,
regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color
revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has
become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were
ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The
bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran
no longer will be subservient to US interests.
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You
scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
It's an
Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the
real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme
sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show
at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As
for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as
much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what
he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred
long ago but took time to perfect.
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities
to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the
trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal
transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial
transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just
that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if
they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they
think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming
administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.
"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."
Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration.
The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional
sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the
frontmen.
When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them
someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist
ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by
Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of
the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic
violence.
I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any
of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing
after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.
I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to
understand WTF just might be going on.
Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor
does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast
messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and
securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Paul wrote:
"Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.
And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one
that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible
question to answer, that too could be the case).
The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the
favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby
group?
A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.
I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my
impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to
scrutinize so much over so many decades.
I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the
Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions
condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign
territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its
withdrawal?'
This could be a useful quote for todays world.
Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called
Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine
Arabs and surrounding Arab states.
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US
can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and
inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the
allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military
strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the
JCPOA...
Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a
false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really
surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and
Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons"
attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy
maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the
alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more
serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't
already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his
"no new wars" supporters will say then?
Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall
sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."
Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can
criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution
other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only
further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US
collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare
responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that
you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?
Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT
for example?
No double standards pass the test here.
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean
exactly nothing.
In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed
civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today,
they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These
American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right
now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."
Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a
population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will
boomerang on the West.
Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and
knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the
current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the
next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are
tired of winning, no?
But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable
of crimes against humanity.
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and
destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the
UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and
sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals
within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign
countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these
private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights,
patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of
those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs
use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all
<=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.
The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..
Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of
authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international
organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is
as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not
threat, its actual PMPO ownership.
If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state,
one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise
obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM
propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their
BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to
eliminate non complying competition.
What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and
technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel
out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the
white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because
Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy?
The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no
visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?
I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US
Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the
US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.
So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means
according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US
militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as
America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the
word out may be to use em or lose em.
In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an
opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the
United States.
"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do
something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done
before."
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not
a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the
popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen
in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless
press in those countries ;)
Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in
Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis
murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.
In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely
tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt
either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would
not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any
conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands
by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.
No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United
Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along
with global lunacy.
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T
Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist
shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?
What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on
Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room,
Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.
@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!
Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me,
I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I
witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.
********
Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his
Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he
visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.
Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard
driving the drumbeat.
Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and
Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST
war you've ever seen.
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that
the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal
arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk,
that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own
script, just like a Hollywood movie.
The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia,
riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in
the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after
it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating
family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and
then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect
but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war
in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but
the empire even on his way down is insatiable.
There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population,
with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the
Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests
while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that
balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin
seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist
Oligarchs
If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in
Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?
Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now
enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any
meaning.
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.
Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with
more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich
contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying
to keep the bug at bay.
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to
calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation
points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.
This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have
Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back
on the path to truth and justice.
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the
extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege
that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but
useful for clarity.
Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US
city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the
digital craze.
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just
guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the
EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but
somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...
Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten?
Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has
not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's
independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions
on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.
Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is
not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully
remove the hook and set it free ;)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
That scientific debate soon turned into a geopolitical one, however. EU farmers are
overwhelmingly dependent on North and West Africa for phosphate where, because of the natural
conditions, there is usually a cadmium level far higher than 20mg/kg. At the same time,
phosphate coming from Russia has far lower natural levels of the metal.
Southern European countries feared that switching phosphate supplies away from Africa
to Russia could severely undermine volatile North African economies and trigger social
problems
One of the countries that has strongly opposed the new labeling rules is Poland -- a
country that historically wants to avoid commercial dependence on Russia but also has its own
national fertilizer business and has invested in a Senegalese phosphate mine
####
Plenty more at the link.
We support the environment as long as it benefits our trade partners and is poitically
balanced in our favor.
This looks like the european industry is waving the 'Russia Bad' flag because it cannot
counter the technical aspects and more environmental policies coming out of the EU.
They are also arguing in favor of less transparency and less information for farmers which
is suspect because their fear is that low cadmium fertilizer (from Russia/wherever) may get
tax-breaks to promote its use.
Rather than figure out a way to adapt and help their partners, their first reaction is to
throw poo at the walls.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
After neocons in Washinton adopted Magnitsky act all bets for US-Russia cooperation are off.
And that in a long run will hurt the USA too.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. ..."
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire
more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by
what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. Sooner or later America's allies are going
to refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose;
it gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and
is something under its control. But that practice causes other countries to gradually
insulate themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than
the cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
The New York Times goes a little further, stressing that the agreement would entail an
economic and military partnership: "It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research
and weapons development and intelligence sharing -- all to fight "the lopsided battle with
terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes." This would give Iran access
to some fairly high-tech systems, perhaps fighter aircraft and training and tech support, but
of that part of the package, I would rate intelligence sharing the highest. It would
potentially give Iran a heads-up on what the USA is planning in the region before it even is
briefed to Congress – Washington leaks like a sieve, and while it is often intentional,
it happens when it is not desired as well.
Washington's policy now consists of little more than frantically papering over cracks as
they appear; its ability to direct the world is gone and its ability to influence it is
deteriorating by the day as it becomes more and more intensely disliked, and everyone's
enemy. Perversely, this brings war closer as a possibility, as threats of it are no longer an
effective deterrent to partnerships and exchanges the USA does not like. More and more of
those threatened are taking the attitude of "Put up or shut up". Trade deals outside
Washington's influence increase those countries' insulation against US sanctions, and perhaps
it is beginning to dawn on the western banking cartel that it is in imminent danger of being
isolated itself, like a fleck of grit that irritates an oyster and finds itself encased in
nacre.
Beijing follows through on its promised retaliation for Washington's move to hold
individuals to account
Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among those facing sanctions in latest tit-for-tat
move
####
More at the link.
What springs to mind is that Groucho Marx quote: "I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member."
That the US sanctions China with an act named after a dodgy Russian book-keeper working
for a thief is all kinds of wrong, but as we all know, the ends justify the means. Hamsters
are happy.
"... 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.
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.
Uncle Volodya says, "Ignorance is always correctable.
But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?"
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of
anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by
the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
―
Issac Asimov
There's a prejudice against making fun of the mad that spans all cultures, all ethnicities; mock the mentally ill
at your peril, for some fair-minded citizen will surely intervene. Possibly many, enough to make you take to your
heels, because those who were born without the ability to reason, or had it and lost it, are perhaps God's most
innocent children. There are few compensations for being born half-a-bubble off plumb, but one of them is
anti-mockery armor. Having a laugh at the expense of the lunatic is bad form; something only dicks do, because it's
cheap and easy.
That's what must be preventing Dmitry Rogozin from roaring with laughter; from falling helplessly to his knees and
collapsing, wheezing, onto his side. If someone smart says something stupid, they are fair game. But laughing when
someone whose openly-stated beliefs suggest they are suffering from dementia is inappropriate. His dilemma is both
obvious, and acute – what to do?
First, some background; who is Dmitry Rogozin? A former Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Russian
Federation's defense industries, he also served as his country's Ambassador to NATO. He has degrees in philosophy and
technology, and currently serves as the Russian Federation's Special Representative on Missile Defense. He is also
the Director of Roscosmos, the Russian state's Space Industry. Some have talked him up as a possible replacement for
Vladimir Putin, as President of the Russian Federation, but it is in his latter capacity, head of Roscosmos, that we
are most interested today. He knows more about rockets than that they are pointy at one end and have fire at the
other, if you get my drift.
A bit more background, and then I promise we can begin to tie things together; I think I can also promise you are
going to laugh. Not because you're a dick. But I think you will find you do have to kind of snicker. Just be careful
who hears you, okay? It's not as much of an insult if people don't know.
Most who have any understanding of space or rockets or satellites have heard of the
RD-180
.
But in case there are some readers who have never heard of it, it is the Russian Federation's workhorse rocket
engine. Its first flight was 20 years ago, but it was built on the shoulders of the
RD-170
, which has been in service since 1985, making it a Soviet
project. The RD-180 is essentially a two-combustion-chamber RD-170, which has four and remains the most powerful
rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is used by the United States in its Atlas space vehicles.
For some time, that was a fairly comfortable arrangement. The USA made fun of Russia whenever it wanted to feel
superior, just as it's always done, and made the occasional ideological stab at 'establishing freedom and democracy'
by changing out its leader, but the Russian people were not particularly cooperative, and there were some problems
getting a credible 'liberal opposition' started; even now, the best candidate still seems to be Alexey Navalny, who
is kind of the granite canoe of opposition figures – not particularly well-known, nasty rather than compelling,
spiteful as a balked four-year-old.
But then American ideologues in the US Department of State decided the time was ripe for a coup in Ukraine, and
almost overnight, the United States and Russia were overt enemies. The United States, under Barack Obama,
imposed
sanctions designed to wreck the Russian economy
, in the hope that despairing Russians would throw Putin out of
office. America's European allies went along for the ride, and trade between Russia and its former trade partners and
associates in Europe and the USA mostly dried up.
Not rocket engines, though. America made an exception for those, and continued to buy and stockpile RD-180's. The
very suggestion that RD-180 engines might go on the sanctions list – US Federal Claims Court Judge Susan Braden
postulated that funds used to purchase rocket engines
might end up in Rogozin's pocket
(he being head of the Space Program, and all), and he was under US sanctions – moved the Commander of the United
States Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to note that without RD-180 engines, the Atlas program
would have to be grounded
.
All this is by way of highlighting a certain vulnerability. Of course, observers remarked, the United States is a
major technological power – it could easily produce such engines itself. So, why didn't it, inquiring minds wanted to
know.
Enter United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tony Bruno, with what reporters described as a 'novel explanation'. Thanks
much for the link, Patient Observer. The United States buys
Russian
rocket engines
to subsidize the Russian space industry
, so that fired rocket scientists will not pack up the wife and kiddies
and their few pitiful belongings, and depart for Iran or North Korea. You know; countries that
really
hate
the United States. I swear I am not making that up. Look:
"The United States is buying Russian rocket engines not because of any problems with its domestic engine
engineering programmes, but to subsidize Russian rocket scientists and to prevent them from seeking employment in
Iran or North Korea, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno has intimated.
"The [US government] asked us to buy [Russian engines] at the end of the Cold War in order to keep the Russian
Rocket Scientists from ending up in North Korea and Iran," Bruno tweeted, responding to a question about what
motivates ULA to continue buying the Russian-made RD-180s."
Sadly, I had no Rogozin-like qualms about being thought a dick. I snorted what I was drinking (chocolate milk, I
think) all over my hand, and gurgled with mirth for a good 20 seconds. Holy Moley – what a retarded explanation! How
long did he grope for that, spluttering like Joe Biden trying to remember what office he is currently running for?
Jeebus Cripes, the United States has
no control at all
over what rocket scientists are paid in the Russian
Federation – what do they imagine prevents Putin The Diktator from just pocketing all the money himself, or spending
it on sticky buns to feed to Rogozin, and throwing a few fish heads to the rocket scientists? Do they really believe
some sort of symbiotic relationship exists between Russia's rocket scientists and the US Treasury Department?
Really
? Have things actually gotten that far down the road to Simple? I tell you, I kind of felt a little sorry
for Tony 'Lightning Rod' Bruno. But more sorry for his family, who has to go out and find him when he's wandering in
the park with no pants on again, you know. Humanitarian concerns.
"Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally,
production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO
Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United
States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated
that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine."
Well, no wonder! It's a lot cheaper to slip some bucks to starving Russian rocket scientists than spend a Billion
simoleons on a Pratt & Whitney program that will take
five years
(!!!) minimum to set up before it even
starts producing an engine the Russians have been making for 20 years, and gave Pratt & Whitney the plans for. Seen
in that light, it makes a weird kind of sense, dunnit? Minus the altruism and violins, of course.
Right about then, I made a second discovery that shook the fuzz off my fundament.
Tony Bruno did not make that
shit up
. No, indeedy. It would have been simpler, and I have to say a bit more comforting, to assume Tony Bruno
is the locus of American retardation. But he isn't; the poor bastard was just repeating an American doctrinal
political talking-point.
Behold
!
"When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the US government worried about the possible consequences of lots of
Russian rocket designers getting fired. What if they ended up working for regimes like Iran or North Korea?"
Pretty much word-for-word what poor Tony Bruno said. And that was posted 5 years ago.
But who cares, right? Just some wiggy space-nerd site.
Oh, but wait.
Look at his reference
. It's from NASA.
And it does indeed include the paragraph he quoted.
"Moreover, several on the Space Council, as well as others in the Bush Administration, saw another reason to
engage the post-Soviets in a cooperative space venture: as a way to help hold the Russian nation together at a time
when the Russian economy was faltering and its society was reeling. In the words of Brian Dailey, Albrecht's
sucessor, "If we did not do something in this time of social chaos in Russia, then there would be potentially a
hemorrhaging of technology 'away from Russia' to countries who may not have a more peaceful intention behind the
use of those technologies."
I'm not sure how reliable that is – the Americans still insist, in it, that they landed on the moon, and it points
out that
Dan Quayle
was head of the National Space Council, dear Lord, have mercy. But it's NASA! There was
apparently a school of thought, prevalent in American politics, that America
had to support the Russian economy
,
for fear of its technological proteges high-siding it for Dangerville. Neither North Korea or Iran are mentioned by
name, but they would certainly be easy to infer from the description.
So we could draw one of two conclusions; either (1) Obama was a witless tool who did not read that historical
imperative (probably had his nose in a healthy-greens cookbook, some shit like that) and blundered ahead with a plan
to wreck the Russian economy, loosing a torrent of Russian rocket scientists into a cynical Murka-hatin' world, or
(2) Obama was a genius who applied sanctions with a surgeon's delicacy, avoiding sanctions on the Russian space
program. Although he did apply sanctions directly on its..umm director. Okay, let's go with (1).
Anyway, it's kind of odd, I guess you'd say, to hear that same Brian Dailey, he who blubbered sympathetically (or
so history records) "We have to do something in this time of social chaos in Russia"
say
this:
"The meeting was actually more or less a signing
ceremony, a large event, so to speak, but it was one that was obviously going to be reaching into some very hard
winds that would prevent us from really moving forward. That's a rather obtuse way of saying that we were having
serious problems with the Russians. They wanted a lot of money for doing these things. They wanted to charge us a lot
of money to hook up, and we didn't believe that since this was a government-to-government activity, that money should
be appropriately involved, and it was the intention of the two Presidents to put something together that would be
funded by their respective governments rather than us trying to fund something for Russia."
Say what? You had to do something for the Russian economy without money? Tell me more.
"
At that point, Dan had got very upset with the
Russians and proceeded to tell them that we were not going to do business with Semenov directly, but our opposite
number was Yuri Koptev, and that he ought to start learning how to work with U.S. industry, and that we were not
going to pay for this particular activity and we were not going to be blackmailed into paying them, so to speak, and
insisted that this be taken off the table and we proceed to find ways of making this happen, not ways to slow it down
or charge us for any kind of cooperative activities like this.
"
This all had to do with cooperation on some sort of docking system for the Mir Space Station, nothing to do with
the RD-180, but I think you can see why I would be a bit skeptical regarding Project Payola for the Russian rocket
scientists.
You might be getting a tingly feeling – call it a suspicion – that the USA is kind of pulling our leg on the idea
that it can make a superior multi-chamber rocket engine any time it feels like it, and is just buying the RD-180 on
long-ago government orders to cut the Russians a break. You might suspect the RD-180 is actually a pretty good
engine, but the United States can't make it for that kind of money, and perhaps can't make it at all. I know! Let's
ask
United Launch Alliance
, that company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of.
"The Atlas launch vehicle's main booster engine, the RD-180, has demonstrated consistent performance with
predictable environments over the past decade. The RD-180 has substantially contributed to the established a record
of high reliability on Atlas launch vehicles since its debut on the Atlas III in May of 2000."
You don't say. Tell me more.
"In the early 1990s the closed cycle, LOx rich, staged combustion technology rumored to exist in Russia was
originally sought out by General Dynamics because engines of this kind would be able to provide a dramatic
performance increase over available U.S. rocket technology. Unlike its rocket building counterparts in the United
States, Europe, China, and Japan, Russia was able to master a unique LOx rich closed cycle combustion technology
which delivered a 25% performance increase."
But but I read the George H.W. Bush administration urged America to buy Russian rocket engines because they heard
a rumor there was a suitcase sale on at the Energomash company store. And that, you know, the scientists might be
planning a little trip.
"NPO Energomash, the leading designer of engines in Russia, had gone through hundreds of designs, each an
improvement on the last, to harness the power of LOx rich combustion. This required a very careful approach to how
the fuel is burned in the preburner so that the temperature field is uniform. It also required improvements in
materials and production techniques. They found a way to take the chamber pressures to new limits while protecting
the internal components from fire risks. This required a new class of high temperature resistant stainless steel
invented to cope with the risks of the LOx rich environment."
Oh, seriously, c'mon – is it as good as all that?
"The demonstrated performance established during this process was beyond anything achieved in the United
States. The RD-180 reaches chamber pressures up to 3,722psia which was more than double the chamber pressures
achieved by comparable U.S. engines. Exposure to Russian design philosophy and the success of a high performance
engine made U.S. engine designers question their own methods. This dual sided cross-cultural engineering approach
which has persisted through the life of the RD-180 program adds depth to the understanding of engine capability and
operational characteristics."
Okay, thanks, company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of. Good to know it wasn't just charity.
The EU should reconsider its 'all or nothing' approach on sanctions imposed on Russia for
its role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its annexation of Crimea, a
new report from the International Crisis Group suggests. The Brussels-based think tank calls
for the easing of certain sanctions in exchange for Russian progress towards peace in
Ukraine.
"Inflexible sanctions are less likely to change behaviour," said Olga Oliker, Europe
and Central Asia programme director. "Because of that, we urge considering an approach that
would allow for the lifting of some sanctions in exchange for some progress, with a clear
intent to reverse that rollback of sanctions if the progress itself is reversed."
.A major roadblock in the implementation of the Minsk deal has been the sequence of
events supposed to bring an end to the conflict that has so far claimed more than 13,000
lives.
Kyiv wants to first regain control over its border with Russia before local elections
in the war-torn region can be held, while Moscow believes that elections must come
first
####
Door. Horse. Barn. Bolted.
The Intentional Critics Grope is yet again a $/€ short in the reality department.
You would think the Editor Gotev (the last two paras by him) would mention that the Minsk
agreement clearly states elections come first and that Kiev has singularly refuse the other
conditions of the agreement, but that really would be asking too much. From a professional
journalist.
It's the same shit we got with the US-North Korea 4 point nuclear agreement where
de-nuclearization of the region is the final stage yet it didn't take Washington and
ball-licking corporate media to parrot 'denuclearization' as the first point as suddently
decided by the Ovum Orifice.*
They try it on again about every six months, just to see if the Russian negotiators have
changed and if the new ones are dimwitted. I'm sure it is crystal clear to the Kremlin that
if it gave Ukraine back exclusive control of the border, it would (a) call up troops and set
up a cordon to make it impossible for eastern Ukraine to be reinforced, and (b) launch an
all-out military push to re-take the breakaway regions. The west would then shout "Safe!!!",
and the game would be over – Ukraine is (almost) whole again, praise Jeebus. There
would be a propaganda storm that Russia was 'trying to meddle in the peace process' while
Kuh-yiv rooted out and either imprisoned or executed all the 'rebel' leaders, and the west
– probably the USA – would provide 'peacekeepers' to give Ukraine time to restore
its complete control over the DNR and LPR. Then, presto! no elections required, we are all
happy Ukrainians!
They knew 'inflexible sanctions were less likely to change behaviors' when they first
agreed to impose them – but they were showing their belly to Washington, and don't know
how to stop now. Serves them right if they are losing revenue and market share.
I don't think Russia is very interested, beyond polite diplomatic raising of the eyebrows, in
relaxing of sanctions under conditions the EU is careful to highlight could be reapplied in a
trice, as soon as anyone was upset with Russia's performance. Because that moment would be
literally only a moment away. The UK can be counted on to register blistering outrage at the
drop of a hat, and while its influence on the EU will soon be limited, dogs-in-the-manger
like Poland can always be relied upon to throw themselves about in an ecstasy of victimhood.
It would be impossible to set up any sort of dependable supply chain, as the interval between
orders would never be known with any degree of certainty. Fuck the EU. Russia is better off
to press on as it has been doing. The EU has to buy oil and gas from Russia because the
logistics and price of American supplies make them economically non-competitive, and best to
just leave it there. The EU will bitch, but it will continue to buy, whereas any other
commerce would be subject to theatrical hissy fits.
US sidestepped OWN SANCTIONS against Russia to save American lives from Covid-19... If only it cared as much about Iranian
lives
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General
Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer.
He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
When it comes to saving American lives, sanctions are not an
obstacle to the provision of life-saving medical equipment. Ramping up sanctions on struggling Iran is okay however – which goes
to show the US price tag on human life. It was a sight that warmed the heart of even the most cynical American opponent of Vladimir
Putin's Russia -- a giant An-124 aircraft, loaded with boxes of desperately needed medical supplies, being offloaded at JFK Airport.
When President Trump spoke on the phone with his Russian counterpart on March 31, he mentioned America's need for life-saving medical
supplies, including ventilators and personal protective equipment. Two days later the AN-124 arrived in New York.
As the aircraft was being unloaded, however, it became clear that at least some of the equipment being offloaded had been delivered
in violation of existing US sanctions. Boxes clearly marked as containing Aventa-M ventilators, produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering
Plant (UPZ), could be seen. For weeks now President Trump has made an issue about the need for ventilators in the US to provide life-saving
care for stricken Americans.
There was just one problem -- the manufacturer of the Aventa-M, UPZ, is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies
(KRET) which, along with its parent holding company ROSTEC, has been under US sanctions since 2014. Complicating matters further
is the fact that the shipment of medical supplies was paid in part by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a Russian sovereign
wealth fund which, like ROSTEC, was placed on the US lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia's intervention in Crimea. Half of
the Russian aid shipment was paid for by the US State Department, and the other half by RDIF.
According to a State Department spokesperson, the sanctions against RDIF do not apply to purchases of medical equipment. KRET,
however, is in the strictest SDN (Specially Designated Persons) sanctions
list , which means US citizens and permanent residents
are prohibited from doing business with it. So while the letter of the sanctions may not have been violated, the spirit certainly
has been.
One only need talk to the embattled Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, to understand the difficulty in trying to purchase
much-needed medical equipment during a global pandemic where everyone else is trying to do the same. New York has been competing
with several other states to purchase much-needed ventilators from China. "It's like being on eBay" , Cuomo recently told
the press, with 50 states bidding against one another, driving the price up. The issue became even more complicated when the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, entered the bidding war. "They big-footed us" , Cuomo said, driving the price per ventilator
up to $25,000. "We're going broke."
Cuomo estimates that New York will need upwards of 40,000 ventilators to be able to handle the influx of stricken patients when
the outbreak hits its peak. At the moment, New York has 17,000 ventilators available -- including 2,500 on order from China -- and
Cuomo doesn't expect any more. "We're on our own." Plans are in place to begin imposing a triage system to prioritize ventilator
availability if and when the current stockpile is exhausted. These plans include the issuance of an emergency waiver that permits
health care providers to take a patient off a ventilator to make it available for another patient deemed to be more "viable"
-- that is, who has a greater expectation of surviving the disease.
Cuomo's predicament is being played out around the world, in places like Italy, Spain -- and Iran, where the outbreak of coronavirus
has hit particularly hard. The difference, however, is that while the US, Italy and Spain are able to scour the global market in
search of life-saving medical supplies, Iran is not. US sanctions targeting the Iranian financial system, ostensibly imposed to prevent
"money laundering" by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command, which has been heavily sanctioned by the US over the years,
have made it virtually impossible for Iran to pay for humanitarian supplies needed to fight the coronavirus outbreak.
As bad as it is for Governor Cuomo, at least he can enter a bidding war for medical supplies. Iran can't even get its foot in
the door, and it is costing lives. Making matters worse, at a time when the international community is pleading for the US to ease
sanctions so Iran can better cope with an outbreak that is taking a life every ten minutes, the US instead doubled down, further
tightening its death grip on the Iranian economy.
The global coronavirus pandemic will eventually end, and when it does there will be an accounting for how nations behaved. Nations
like Russia and China have been repeatedly vilified in the US media for any number of reasons -- even the Russian aid shipment containing
the sanctioned ventilators has been dismissed as a "propaganda ploy." What, then, do you call the US' blatant disregard
for select human lives?
The callous indifference displayed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials to the suffering of the Iranian people
by increasing sanctions at a time when the situation cries out for them to be lifted in order to save lives, when contrasted to the
ease in which US sanctions on Russia are ignored when life-saving medical equipment is needed, drives home the point that, as far
as the US is concerned, human life only matters when it is an American one. That might play well among American voters (it shouldn't),
but for the rest of the world it is a clear sign that hypocrisy, not humanitarianism, is the word that will define the US going forward.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that entering a financial relationship with RDIF is prosecutable
under the US sanctions regime. In reality, RDIF is under sectoral sanctions that only apply to certain interactions, which, according
to a State Department spokesperson, do not include purchases of medical equipment. The article has been changed accordingly.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
I realise few will since amerikans are 100% exceptionalist right up to their last breath but
please read the best article by far on masks & respirators cleaning issues esp such ones
as 'steam' cleaning are on this link I posted earlier.
It is written by Dr John Campbell who has been writing on this virus for several months.
My brother the retired journo recommended him to me in early February, so naturally I have
been assiduous in ignoring the bloke for that reason, combined with the fact Campbell is an
englander, but he has put together an excellent piece on masks & respirators, one which
uses y'know those pesky fact things to support his statements about assorted items efficacy,
longevity and ability to be cleaned. With respirators 95% & above he recommends having
several and rotating them so that they cop 4-5 days down time which should be enough time for
the virus to kark it of its own accord.
I don't believe for a moment that will stop the continual spouting of uninformed claptrap,
but I tried.
R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around
the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even
viability, of major international oil companies.
On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest
producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia,
which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price
it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding
the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.
Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather
American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector,
and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing
oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world
market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly
reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers.
Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United
States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being
ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers "
share the pain ".
The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more
than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and
threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued
on March 6, 2014, through Executive
Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean
region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic
processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."
The most
recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18,
2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage
firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian
Nord Stream 2
and
Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.
Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In
July 2014, Russian President Vladimir
Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two
countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and
people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of
administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir
Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more
friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored
Trump .
"Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with
President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked
about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some
sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced
these concerns.
Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to
President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)
– I always knew he was very smart!"
Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort
to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and
interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian
Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.
This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways.
In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the
release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the
U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid"
move .
"Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people
and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this
list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."
From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the
entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the
part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be
toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."
While President Trump entered office fully intending to "
get along with Russia ," including the possibility of
relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as
viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These
sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative
impact on the Russian economy,
slowing growth and
driving away foreign investment .
While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent
targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut
oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the
Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.
The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that
there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader
sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some
time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to
the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They
(our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current
[i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions
against Russia in recent years."
By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin
has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact
he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of
relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of
close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S.
was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power
colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other
nations.
From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from
2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked
to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the
imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once
the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.
If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the
pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for
the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because
investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion
of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as
"fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil
per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's
were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.
The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will
suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35
per barrel,
there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in
the coming election.
It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to
the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel
for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.
In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament
it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S.,
Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade
and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy
markets."
Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom
Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without
a plan."
Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated --
to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up
to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and
considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a
response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books,
including his forthcoming, Scorpion King:
America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).
America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western
world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global
pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence.
Special to Consortium News
The Trump administration has brought U.S. foreign policy to the brink of crisis, if it has
not already tipped into one. There is little room to argue otherwise. In Asia, Europe, and the
Middle East, and in Washington's ever-fraught relations with Russia, U.S. strategy, as reviewed
in my
previous column , amounts to little more than spoiling the efforts of others to negotiate
peaceful solutions to war and dangerous standoffs in the interests of an orderly world.
The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than
blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of
U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the
passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.
There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's
regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump,
deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil
liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that
it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now. The crisis of U.S.
foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with
personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at
the margins.
Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this
undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?
It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end.
What ensued had various names.
There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest
achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market
capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The
consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the
time.
The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual
ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.
Happier days with Russia. (Eric Draper)
Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted
in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008
financial crash followed.
I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An
economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in
Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.
The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade
must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of
our planet's impasses.
A Strategic and Military Turn
Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with
the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. The
NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change
operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be
a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed
Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live
with daily. The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in
policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at
the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a
campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.
Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.
I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what
it now calls its Belt and Road
Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai
to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to
play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic
Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.
Belt and Road Initiative. (Lommes / CC BY-SA 4.0)
In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and
diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism
and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as
Russia and the West.
Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it
apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that
established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime
change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on
which the government now in power still depends.
That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.
If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument
-- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around
him, as he acknowledged in his interview
with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From
that
"Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump
is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.
The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of
imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single
original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the
now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create
quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official
told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.
Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.
Global 'Equals' Like Us?
There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all
facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view,
but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.
As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century
imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all
nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.
Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on
non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like
us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.
Can't we all just get along? (Carlos3653 / Wikimedia)
Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal
adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a
key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each
stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led
order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they
are determined to preserve them.
They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic
alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify
precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and
neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to
accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.
This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time
No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you valued this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
adversary: – one's opponent in a contest, conflict or dispute.
& I ask this
"Is it really thus"
"Why must it be thus"
How can China be an adversary of the USA when all their manufactured goods come from
China.
example:- a water distiller – manufactured in & purchased from China retails for
AU$70 odd.
The very same item manufactured in China – but purchased from the USA retails for
US$260 plus.
China should be a most welcome guest at the dinner table of the USA.
R Davis , September 20, 2018 at 04:28
While i'm here – where did China get all their surveillance equipment from –
the place is locked down tighter than a chicken coop plagued by foxes.
relevant article – CRAZZ FILES – Bone Chilling Footage Shows the Horrific
Tyranny Google is Now Secretly Fostering in China.
In my opinion Google is not trying to keep information out of China – BUT –
preventing information from get out of China – to the world at large.
A lockdown as severe as this – tells us that there is something seriously bad happening
inside China.
Maybe even a mass genocide
This analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, what is lacking is an analysis of the
lunatic monetary ideology that has looted the physical economy of the U.S. by putting
enormous fake profits of speculative instruments in the hands of our "elites." It is the post
industrial, information age economy which must be transformed by very painful loss of control
by these putative elites if the world is to survive their insane geopolitics. What the
Chinese are doing by rapid build up of worldwide infrastructure needs to be replicated here.
The only way of doing so is first by ending the Wall St./City of London derivatives nightmare
and then by issuing trillions of credits needed for that very purpose.
Agreed, you speak wisely of the root of the problem. Those who create and distribute money
make ALL the rules and dominate the political and media landscape.
This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost
all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my
view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques
"
Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 18:03
You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American
Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world
which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies,
a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to
war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions
of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.
This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny
that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to
be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's
predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the
Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.
Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 22:09
"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq?
Very few."
Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War
2003-2007;
Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of
State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40
percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember
the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the
consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the
majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.
Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition
of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were
against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 23:05
You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.
PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).
"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington."
Homer Jay , September 17, 2018 at 14:47
Respectfully, Your data backs up my comment/data. And to your larger point, again we must
be careful when describing such attitudes as "American", a country with a wide range of
attitudes/ beliefs. To suggest we are all just a war mongering mob is bigoted. You probably
will say that's defensive but it's also right. And making the recklessly inaccurate claim
that "very few" Americans opposed the war in Iraq, without taking into account the
disinformation campaign that played into the initial consent, needs to corrected more than
once.
Sari , September 14, 2018 at 15:15
I just encountered (via Voltairenet) "The Pentagon's New Map," a book written by Thomas
Barnett, an assistant once to Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (now deceased). Barnett wrote an
earlier article for the March 2003 Esquire entitled "Why the Pentagon Changes Its Map: And
Why We'll Keep Going to War" ( https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/
) describing their ideas which are introduced thusly:
"Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an
operating theory of the world -- and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a
leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively
shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis at the
U.S. Naval War College, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving
this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now, he gives it
to you."
His basic premise: "Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity,
financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you
regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide
than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where
globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by
politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and --
most important -- the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global
terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap."
One more quote gives you the "Monarch Notes" edition: "Think about it: Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda are pure products of the Gap -- in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They
tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and
which states they would like to take "offline" from globalization and return to some
seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population,
especially Saudi Arabia).
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record
of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a
U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity."
Of course, we all recognize how much prevarication currently exists in "implementing" this
strategy, but I would suggest that, very likely, the Pentagon is, indeed, following this "New
Map." And, yes, this "map" shows us why the U.S. has been continually at war since 9/11 and
subbornly refuses to leave Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East with their apparent justification
being "Might Makes Right." Thierry Mayssen (Voltairenet) aptly describes the Gap states as
"reservoirs of resources" driven into perpetual war, destabilization, and chaos by a
preeminently overwhelming hegemonic U.S. military.
I had to laugh. One of Barnett's reasons in promulgating this new "map" involves the
continued stability of the Core; however, what do we see today? Huge waves of immigration
greatly destabilizing every aspect of Europe and chaos and destabilization flooding the U.S.
via false/contrived polarization in every sphere of life. BUT! The military has "a Map!"
Psssstt!! Who's "creating" the Gap? Who has funded and armed Al Qaeda/DAESH/ISIS in the
Middle East? We'll need GPS to keep up with the Pentagon's "new map!"
Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 14:39
I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals.
Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political
systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for
themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make
those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people
either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations
of the World!
Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 21:54
Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was
inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate
ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made
quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities
addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also
left unexamined, so where to begin?
That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly
independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this
forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time
to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's
figure out how to begin.
So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not
The People
Jill Stein said if elected she would boycott all countries guilty of human rights abuses
and she included Saudi Arabia and Israel. She also said she would form a 9/11 commission
comprised of those independent people and groups currently reporting on this travesty.
Meanwhile we have the self-proclaimed "progressive" talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann,
defending the PNAC NEOCONS while making Stein persona non grata and throwing real progressive
candidates under the bus.
The PNAC NEOCONS understood the importance of creating a galvanizing, catastrophic and
catalyzing event but the alternative media is afraid to call a spade a spade, something about
the truth being too risky to ones career, I assume.
See much more at youtopia.guru
Bob Van Noy , September 17, 2018 at 09:19
Lee Anderson thank you for your response, I agree and I appreciate the link suggestion,
I'm impressed and will read more
didi , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
It is always the unintended consequences. Hence I disagree with some of your views. A
president who takes actions which trigger unintended/unexpected consequences can be held
accountable for such consequences even if he/she could not avert the consequences. It is also
often true that corrections are possible when such consequences begin to appear. Given our
system which makes only presidents powerful to act on war, peace, and foreign relationships
there is no escaping that they must be blamed only.
A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is
in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the
hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted
ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the
neofeudal/futile system. When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful
expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon
consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the
Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.
nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18
I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is
the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly
with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military
dimensions."
To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the
goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination:
"Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the
countries it invaded to be "Just like us."
Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR,
I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed,
it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual
"progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the
history of the country squarely.
That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15
Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years
of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational
governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The
false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right
paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of
division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy."
But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization
among elitists is predictable.
Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they
have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion,
they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any
mainstream cause or social movement.
What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level
narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These
people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as
naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual
benefit."
Your comment is astute and valuable, and consequently deserves to be signed with your real
name, so that you can be identified as someone worth listening to.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 17:44
Screen names don't matter, content does.
OlyaPola , September 15, 2018 at 11:34
"Screen names don't matter, content does."
Apparently not for some where attribution is sought and the illusion of trust the source
trust the content is held, leading to curveballs mirroring expectations whilst serving the
purposes of others.
""The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970"
The date of publication is of significance as was Mr. Paul Craig Roberts' Alienation in
the Soviet economy of 1971, as was Mr. Andrei Amalrik's "Can the Soviet Union last until 1984
published in 1969.
The period 1968 – 1973 was one significant trajectory in the half-life of "we the
people hold these truths to be self-evident" which underpinned and maintained the "nation
state" misrepresented/branded as the "United States of America" through a change in the
assays of the amalga mutual benefit/hold these truths to be self-evident.
The last hurrah of the "red experts" – Mr. Brezhnev and associates – despite
analyses/forecasts from various agencies agreed, detente based on spheres of influence
facilitating through interaction/complicity various fiats including but not restricted to
fiat currency, fiat economy, fiat politics all dependent on mutations of "we the people hold
these truths to be self-evident".
This interaction also facilitated processes which accelerated the demise of the "Soviet
Union" and its continuing transcendence by the Russian Federation – the choice of title
being a notice of intent that some interpreted as the "End of History" whilst others
interpreted as lateral opportunity facilitated by the hubris of the "End of History".
The "red experts" were not unique in their illusions; another pertinent example is the
strategy of the PLO in maintaining the illusion of the two state solution/"Oslo accords"
facilitating the continuing colonial project branded as "Israel".
Mr. Brzezinski was one of the others who interpreted the "End of History" as linear
opportunity where the assay of amalga of form could be changed to maintain content/function
which was/is to "still" control all the players.
However in any interactive system neither omniscience nor sole agency/control is possible,
whilst by virtue of interaction the complicity of all can be encouraged in various ways to
facilitate useful outcomes in furtherance of purpose, whilst illusions of the "End of
History" and the search for the holy grail of "Full Spectrum Dominance" acted as both
accelerators and multipliers in the process of encouragement, whilst obscuring this process
in open sight through the opponents' amalga of reliance on "plausible belief based in part on
projection", "exceptionalism" and associated hubris.
The "nation state" subsuming illusions of mutual benefit and mutual purpose has always
been a function of the half-lives of components of its ideological facades and practices
– sexual intercourse wasn't invented in 1963 and "The "nation-state" as a fundamental
unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force" wasn't initiated
in 1970.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 13:43
"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the
private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is
produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the
resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the
political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the
differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky
Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in
the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a
"peace dividend" following the end of WWII. To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only
acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of
discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/
. We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of
benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no
need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign
countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences.
What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US
dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight
back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to
discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?
All that and we constantly have to endure the bankster/MIC-controlled media proclaiming
everyone who joins the military as "heroes" defending our precious"freedoms." The media mafia
is evil.
Walter , September 14, 2018 at 09:26
The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the
"Statement of A. Wess Mitchell
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21
this year. The transcript is at :
"It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American
power. "
Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken
words
I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New
Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.
Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava
Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public
that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public
delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
"I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"
Some have an attraction to book-ends.
Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian
book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in
any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people
hold these truths to be self-evident".
Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.
Walter , September 15, 2018 at 12:31
If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world, of course – especially because
Chin and Rus are able to liquidate any counter-forces that attempt to create or maintain
"book-ends.
The actual spoken words to the Senate of Mr. Michell are very significant, as the removal
of them from the ostensibly real, but actually false, State Department "Transcript" implies.
Foolish Mr. Michell! He accidentally spoke the true objective of US foreign policy and also
the domestic objective – total bamboozlement of the US population "prepare the country
for " (Obvious, world war against the Heartland states that fail to "cooperate"
(surrender).
People ought to read the pdf what Michell actually spoke all of it and consider the
logical implications. Michell has a big mouth Good. He confirms the dark truths
The guilty according to circumstantial evidence has confessed his guilt so to say;
confirming the crime
An Israeli-Saudi "Greater Israel" dividing Syria between Saud and zion is of course a goal
that in effect would be a "book-end".
Too late now as it is clear that Syrian skies are probably going to soon be "no-fly-zone"
for foreign invaders
Then will come the "pitch-forks", as Napoleon's retreat from Moscow illustrated
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 04:25
"If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world"
Absolutes including stasis don't exist but the belief of others in book-ends including
extensive foreign bases are lands of opportunities for others facilitating pitch forking
without extensive travel.
Consequently some perceive that the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to
represent as "strategies" and "tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived
there-from.
Some would hold that the opponents' have a greater assay of the rubbing sticks school of
thermo-dynamics in "their" amalga of perception, in some regards even less perceptive than
Heraclitus although Heraclitus lived in his time/interactions as the interaction below
suggests.
One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
A further illustration of this and how it was/is not limited to present opponents citing
trajectories during the period 1968 – 1973 and some subsequent consequences was
broadcast through this portal on the 14th of September 2018 but not "published" possibly in
ignorance of Mr. Bulgakov's contention that manuscripts don't burn.
The examples used were detente on the bases of spheres of influence agreed by the
Politburo despite contrary advice from many agencies, the strategy of the PLO and half-life
of these beliefs in the strategies of Hamas.
Detente on the basis of sphere of influence facilitated fiat currency, fiat politics, and
fiat re-branding – "neo-liberalism" -, colonial projects in Western Asia, and how
opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process (Stop the Empires War on Russia slogan being a useful example) and those
not so immersed helped facilitate the ongoing transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the
Russian Federation – the title being a notice of intent that opponents perceived as the
"End of History" as functions of their framing and projection.
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 07:51
Some hold that New York, New York was so good they named it twice, whilst some others
wonder whether they named it twice to make it easier for the inhabitants to locate.
Following the precautionary principle I attach below a further illustration of :
" . the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to represent as "strategies" and
"tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived there-from ..
"One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
which was alluded to in the "unpublished" broadcast which referenced
1. "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970.
2. Mr. P.C. Roberts' Alienation in the USSR (1971)
3. Mr Andrei Amalrik's Can the Soviet Union last until 1984 (1969).
in illustration of interactive amalga which some call Russiagate, presumably because the
water had flowed but apparently not under the bridge.
The recent US presidential election process including the "outcomes" were relatively easy
to predict
and required no encouragement from outside – doing "nothing" being a trajectory of
doing for those not trapped in the can do/must do conflation.
Some don't understand Russian very well and so instead of understanding Mr. Putin's remark
that Mr. Trump was "colourful" which has connotations to some with facility in the Russian
culture/language, some sought to bridge doubt by belief to attain expectation on the basis of
"plausible belief".
An increasing sum of some are no longer so immersed as illustrated in
whilst perceptual frames often have significant half-lives.
exiled off mainstreet , September 14, 2018 at 00:42
This is a great series of articles and the comments, including those having reservations,
are intelligent. Since those comments appearing not to appear later seem to have appeared,
mechanical difficulties of some sort seem to have been what occurred. I hope Mr. Tedesky, one
of the most valued commentators writing in the comments, continues his work.
Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy
since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0.
In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum
between 1990 and 2010. Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between
"Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China
however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the
geopolitical war between the two. Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of
the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to
control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US
must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus,
what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948.
Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.
Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 00:16
Mr. Etler,
I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were
both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only
the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all
aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's
Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum"
and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA,
certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be
distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.
Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which
the MSM propaganda continues to spread. There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a
false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure
if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from
doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 13:41
"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."
Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign
policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the
contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those
regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's
wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.
Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream,
unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.
The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.
The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland"
This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of
the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this
fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .
Thus World War, as we see
Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 09:38
"Conjuring up Heraclitus "
"And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past."
Time is a synonym of interaction the perception of which and opportunities derived
therefrom being functions of analysing interactions which require notions and analyses of
upstream-perceived transition point (similar to the concept/construct zero)-downstream
lateral processes, which Heraclitus perceived and practiced.
Heraclitus lived in a previous time/interaction and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time.
Omniscience can never exist in any lateral system, but time/interaction has facilitated
the increase of perceptions and lateral opportunities to facilitate various futures and their
encouragement through processes of fission – the process of strategy formulation,
strategy implementation, strategy evaluation, and strategy modulation refers.
Framing including attempts to deny agency to others and hence interaction thereby denying
time, leads to strategic myopia, and when outcomes vary from expectations/hopes/wishes lead
the myopic to attempt to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort.
Categorical imperatives are kant facilitating can't, best left to Kant, although
apparently some are loathe to agree.
"The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the
status quo ante ."
The temporary socio-economic arrangement misrepresented/branded as "The United States of
America" has a vested interest in seeking to deny time/interaction including through
"exceptionalism" and a history of flailings and consequences derived therefrom.
"Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China
and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
As above, Heraclitus lived in a previous time and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time although apparently not
informing the perceptions and practices of some.
Understandably Heraclitus sometimes relied within his framing on notions of moments of
stasis/absolutes (steady states) such as opposites, where as like in all areas of
thermo-dynamics a more modern framework would include the notions of amalga with varying
interactive half-lives.
It would appear that your contribution is also subject to such "paradox" as in "China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
Perhaps a more illuminating but more complex formulation would be found in :
"In other parts of planet earth the assay of amalga and their varying interactive
half-lives differ from those asserted to exist within the temporary socio-economic
arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America" thereby facilitating
opportunities to transcend coercive relationships such as those practiced by the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America", by
co-operative socio-economic relations conditioned by the half-lives of perceptions and
practices derived therefrom.
In part that contributed and continues to contribute to the lateral process of
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation previously leading to a limited
debate whether to nominate Mr. Brezhinsky, Mr.Clinton, Mr. Fukuyama or Mr. Wolfowitz for the
Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts facilitating the transcendence of the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America".
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 13:29
I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly
different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way
back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has
long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the
strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok.
That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in
WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of
the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known
as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take
a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the
sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe
billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really
an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism
and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their
excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come
riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following
Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but
refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.
The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's
been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at
least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the
primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.
Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59
Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and
simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the
chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we
are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole
trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global
power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their
own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every
excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in
Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our
thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and
more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined,
"our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 14:18
I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of
our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank,
and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya
know.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 15:33
I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the
petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our
recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would
tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world
safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.
Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 22:40
+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and
Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that
anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private
banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China. And note
(2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the
entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks
MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18
It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force
regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as
a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today,
regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I
forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian,
and will work out about the same for NATO.
Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't
matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere
he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.
Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did
not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not
only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously
true.
TJ , September 13, 2018 at 13:47
What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who
is elected -- the same policies will continue.
Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 15:43
Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:02
Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to
Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose,
he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between
Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful
expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.
Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.
He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign
policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
"
Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so
many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 08:46
I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into
the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of
deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the
State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think
about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he
declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are
systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the
next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I
would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After
all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his
intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that
likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and
identify before we can move on
Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 09:35
Bob-
I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right. Many of the people involved
in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather
than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are
not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. Remember when
"Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that
became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy
seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are
embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking
system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the
world than have to share.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:42
You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to,
and against.
Thank you.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:46
I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built
and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob
Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:30
Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the
bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations
as a front organization and control mechanism. "The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 09:42
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:51
Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the
problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:36
Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his
consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal.
Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/
will , September 15, 2018 at 22:30
people have been pointing out that Woodward is the exact kind of guy the CIA would recruit
since shortly after Watergate.
The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk –
which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South
Korea.
"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US
program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."
Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal
maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about
withdrawing troops or missiles.
Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these
days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.
You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what
isn't?
Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of
South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the
letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.
Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by
killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to
work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'
Bob once again my comment disappeared I hope someone retrieves it. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Here's what I wrote:
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Again
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 14:03
Thanks for retrieving my comments sorry for the triplicating of them. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:25
3 of my comments disappeared boy does this comment board have issues. I'm beginning to
think I'm being targeted.
Deniz , September 13, 2018 at 17:58
Dont take it personally, I see it more of a lawnmower than a scalpel.
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:36
My comment has disappeared too-it was a reply to anastasia.
Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 08:20
Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other
Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that
with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the
hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is
something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11?
In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al
QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American
targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when
ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American
Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from
Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US
can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this
Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation
& loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline
& end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that
inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire,
is over!
Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 07:57
Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.
Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 07:37
Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way
to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives
better.
mike k , September 13, 2018 at 07:14
Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately
the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum
dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the
resistance to US aggression.
This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing
now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate
disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we
are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.
OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 04:39
Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a
post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept
global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."
Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global
stability."
Framing is always a limiter of perception.
Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above,
is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and
opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by
arrangements based on co-operation.
Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process.
John Chuckman,
Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with
how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.
Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into
easy to read and digest summaries.
I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try
invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.
1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a
military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest
internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that
would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical
fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").
2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to
leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire
for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran
could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to
pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.
3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and
diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.
Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded
terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
"... Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria, which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse to impose sanctions. ..."
"... Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S., which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk. ..."
"... Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been pioneering anti-sanction measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity. ..."
Washington's Proposed New Sanctions Against Turkey also Aimed Against Russia
December 18, 2019 A Opinion Leave a commentWith the world fixated on Turkish actions
against Syria, Greece and Libya at the moment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate
of the United States Congress approved a bill, "Promoting American National Security and
Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," spearheaded and thoroughly promoted by staunch
anti-Syria/Venezuela/Iran/Russia Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who celebrated the bills
passing
on his Twitter . The Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 18-4 to send
the bill for a vote in the full Senate.
The approval of the bill was widely reported in the mainstream media as an "anti-Turkey
bill." Senator Jim Risch, the panel's Republican chairman, a fellow endorser of the bill with
Menendez, said that the approval of this bill is because of the "drift by this country, Turkey,
to go in an entirely different direction than what they have in the past. They've thumbed their
nose at us, and they've thumbed their nose at their other NATO allies."
According to
the draft bill , the Turkish acquisition of the powerful S-400 missile defense system gives
grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In particular, the document restricts the sale of U.S. weapons
to Turkey and imposes sanctions on Turkish officials responsible for supplying weapons towards
their
illegal military operation in Syria.
Turkey signed in December 2017 the first contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400
for a value of $2.5 billion, which caused tension in relations between Ankara and Washington.
The U.S. demanded that Ankara renounce that transaction and buy U.S. Patriot systems, and
threatened to delay or cancel the sale of the F-35 fighters to Turkey. Ankara refused to make
concessions and assured that its purpose of acquiring Russian systems remains firm.
What was missed, perhaps intentionally by the majority of the mainstream media is that this
bill has a heavy anti-Russian/Syrian component to it. Although not as detailed and expansive as
the Turkish section of the bill, it claims that "the Russian Federation and Iran continue to
exploit a security vacuum in Syria and continue to pose a threat to vital United States
national security interests," without explaining what these security interests are, exactly as
we have become accustomed to.
According to the bill, there will be a
"list of each Russian person that, on or after such date of enactment, knowingly exports,
transfers, or otherwise provides to Syria significant financial, material, or technological
support that contributes materially to the ability of the Government of Syria to acquire
defense articles, defense services, and related information."
Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that
there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria,
which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list
will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United
States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the
same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse
to impose sanctions.
These proposed new sanctions that will have to pass the House of Representatives, which
passed its own anti-Turkish sanctions bill by an overwhelming 403-16 vote in October, is part
of a wider effort for the U.S. to keep pressurizing Russia's economy. On December 9, the
committees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress previously agreed on the military budget for
2020, which includes restrictions against the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream pipelines to bring
Russian energy to Europe, infrastructures designed to raise Europe's energy security. The U.S.
bill that provides sanctions against companies participating in the laying of the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline aims to obtain unilateral advantages in the gas area to the detriment of the
interests of the countries of Europe. This prompted the chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Russian-German Foreign Chamber of Commerce, Matthias Schepp, to explain that the new
measures against Nord Stream 2 affect not only Russia, but, above all, European companies and
Germany's energy interests.
Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S.,
which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky
measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed
by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk.
Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS
Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS
terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or
Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this
will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been
pioneering anti-sanction
measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a
Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity.
This is the net result of Clinton policies and neocon dominance in the USA foreign policy.
And it is not a pretty picture. It might difficult to win Russia back as an ally after those
Russiagate nonsense. They feel really offended by it and might overreact as is evident from the
test below.
I'll just say again that imbecilization is a completely normal historical phenomenon in declining empires, Empires also tend to have a very
flexible conception of truth, that is, they believe they can
fabricate reality for the simple reason they are geopolitically dominant.
The fact that the MSM have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has
played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false
narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real
Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily
"news".
It feels like the world has gone crazy. They push someone's wallet in our pocket, and then
shout "catch the thief!". We try to debunt this false flag, show surveillance footage, which
clearly shows the setup. But the continue shout in chorus - " thief, thief, thief!".
Acquaintances turn away, hide their eyes. Those "Western partners" iare numerous and they
silence our weak attempts to protest. We were driven into a corner... They try to strangulate
us with sanctions.
Unfortunately, this is our new reality. For the next decade. The question is "Why?" Because
we are a force in international arena again. We're ruining their racketeering business. We are
a vivid example that it is possible to escape the system of the global racket of which they
feed, That there is an alternative.
So now there is a player who does not wan to pay the racketeers, And he is still alive. This
means that others may not pay either. They hate such a situation, because other players may
refuse to pay, and that also means that sooner or later they might be force to live within this
own meanss. It has been a long time since they live within their means, and they completely
lost the habit of doing so. So they want to "solve" the problem with us now ones and forever,
while others are still afraid of them.
Plus they have a new gang leader. Like all newbies, he wants to be the toughest. And raises
the stakes.
Let's face the truth. They won't let us go easily. It's pointless to explain. We will be
hunted, subjected to the array of false flags, persecuted and sanctioned to death. And if they
feel the slack – they will beta us to the death, much more thoroughly then they did in
1990th. The question of whether this can be avoided is no longer worth asking. Today we have
one question – how to survive the next two decades?
We need finally exhale and turn on the brain... The key to victory, as Sun Tzu wrote –
is in knowing the enemy and knowing yourself.
What is their strength?
First, there are many. And they have money. They can buy everything, including witnesses and
judges. We'll be blamed for for anything; they will attack and we will be framed as the
attacker.
Second, they scream loudly. In chorus. That control world mass communications. And their
propaganda works. It is useless to argue otherwise. All our arguments are useless. They will
fall of death ear and will be ignored. Nobody will question their validity -- they will be
simply swipe under the carpet. No matter how ridiculous is their "version of events" is
(Skripals, Russiagate, Ukrainegate) the label "the guilty party" is already put on us like a
yellow patch on the Jews in Nazi Germany. Before any investigation or God forbid judicial
process. And most people on the planet still take their word for it.
What is their weakness?
As opponents these guys, I mean their neoliberal elites are the second grade; they belong to
the "grey zone", the zone of mediocrity. Too greedy, too arrogant, and too lazy. Sometime
semi-senile. Their previous generation was much stronger. They respected us. And we them.
We do not respect this new neoliberal elite and they feel that. And we don't respect them
because such mediocrities do not deserve our respect, and are not trustworthily partner. They
generally can be classified as "Unable to adhere to any legal treaties" (Nedogovorosposobnie")
. And that scares us, almost to death, because you need to deal with completely unpredictable,
bizarre partner for whom treaties and agreements are not worth the paper they were printed on.
But they will avoid open fight, unless the success guaranteed. We need to ensure that such
situation never occur.
Their nervousness, their fidgeting, their second-rateness now is staring to be felt by other countries who would
prefer to hedge their bet and join only a sure winner. They see that the outcome of the USA quest for Full Spectrum Dominance is not yet
decided.
In addition, our opponents are now engaged in brutal showdown with each other. Western
Europe recovered and became competitor of the USA. They also are openly laughing over their new chief. Half of the major
Europium countries leadership probably hates him. For how long he can stay in
power is completely unclear. But this is a new and unexpected development. .
And those in the second row, the stooges, are generally ready to escape from this virtual
battlefield. It became too expensive to catch hot potatoes for Uncle Sam as the amount of loot
for partners shrunk dramatically. And problems with neoliberalism at home mounted. Neoliberal
chickens start coming to roost. They were promised money and a share of loot, not a beating in a real fight
with a strong determined opponent.
What is our strength?
First of all we no longer have any illusions about the the USA or West in general, illusions
that cost us so dearly in 1990th. They are predators who want to colonize, fleece and dismember
our nation. An having no illusions means that they can't repeat economic rape they committed in
1990th. Now we know what awaits us if we give up. They'll devour us completely. Those gangsters
will kick the lying opponent with feet until he is dead. They won't let us survive a second
time.
We also have a grenade as the last resort. They know it, and they're terrified we'll pull
the pin.
They don't understand how we can be defeated, so they try new ways to make us surrender
without a fight. Looking for a weak spot.
What is our weakness?
Our first problem is that we are alone. We are a big and clumsy country with a lot of
internal problems and convoluted history. Which refuse to became the USA vassal. We were a difficult neighbor in the past. Some
people are afraid of us because or our past.
Our second and main problem is the lack of money for economic reconstruction. We don't have enough money for the restoration of the
economy and the standard of living of our people after 1990th rape to the level we deserve as
the major European country. Say the level the Germany managed to achieve, despite being
defeated in WWII. And nobody is going to help us, at least on acceptable conditions. They will
try to slow down our economic development by all mean possible. that's why they already imposed
sanctions under bogus pretext. They will impose more to slow down the process. They will
manipulate oil prices and engage us in "gas wars." If we can solve this problem and restore the
economy and the standard of living of people after 1990 collapse other problems will be easier
to take on.
Also a nice thing about having money is that you instantly have a lot of fiends ;-) At
once.
Now some panoramic view on the situation like in oil painting.
First of all out willingness to fight back is a guarantee that they will not get into a real
fight. We need to hold out for the next ten-twenty years or so. I think this is what we can
expect for neoliberalism to last before the collapse.
But that doesn't solve all our problems. We need that they stop punching us with new
sanctions. Better forever but, at least for the next twenty years. Until their racket finally
falls apart.
So the second goal is to earn to earn money need to reconstruction of the economy and
creating first class infrastructure. Which will allow us to grow. and we need to do this while
there is time. That probably means that invest our money in growth and stop saving "for a rainy
day" in US treasures and Western banks. Otherwise, this rainy day may come in a very unexpected
fashion and way too soon: money will simply be confiscated as long as they can do it with
impunity.
Andrey Bezrukov is the associate Professor of the chair of applied analysis of
international problems, MGIMO
The problem with import substitution is that the factories that used to make these goods were
largely moved to China. China isn't going to give them back.
So in order to attempt to substitute US made for the China imports, the factories have to
be built first.
Secondly, China heavily subsidizes the early parts of the supply chains: raw materials and
what not. This wouldn't hold true to American factories.
So while the goal and the theory are good, the problem is the execution.
Russia is doing it because they're forced to: sanctions actually accelerates the process
because Russian internal investors know there will be a reasonably long term market for
Russian goods so long as the sanctions hold true, and the sanctions also lock in Russian
capital (that which was repatriated) to some extent.
"... This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia. ..."
"... Then good old Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and nail. ..."
"... Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from Kaliningrad could be accomplished. ..."
You are 100% correct that trust is the number one point in coming to any agreement and
currently there is very little trust on either side for varying reasons. One important fact
that is overlooked by most people is the leadership of President George H. W. Bush and PM
Margaret Thatcher during the transition from the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact to independent
sovereign nations. The Bush was a WW II pilot and Thatcher earned the name Iron Lady for her
decisive action in the Falklands War, both understood the world as it was in 1990. This
statement highlights the view that prevailed from Bush at the time: "Not once, but three
times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9,
1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO
expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend
to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that the
Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as
well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in
Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction
will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6)"
These were complicated issues that involved a multitude of parties being negotiated by
just a few i.e. US, UK, France and West Germany a holdover from the WW II model. The Poles,
Czechs and others were not consulted and IMHO had they been the situation would have become
untenable. It must be remembered that Poland and Czechoslovakia suffered heavily due to
"large important nations" giving them away pre and post WW II. There was no written agreement
nor official treaty between the west and the Soviet Union soon to be Russian Federation and I
believe that was intentional for the reason I give above. George H. W. Bush was not reelected
in 1992 and Bill Clinton became POTUS and he pursued a foreign policy that was entirely
different. Some of his ideas used Thatchers earlier idea of a more political NATO with less
emphasis on the original military mission which brought in the Partnerships for Peace
program. That program was IMHO quite good as it stabilized countries that were wobbly in the
1990's after the breakup occurred. The Clinton White House had Madeline Albright an immigrant
from Czechoslovakia as secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski a former secretary of State
and an academic that influenced his policies which were pro eastern European anti Russian. It
was during this time that NATO expanded. The US is a country of immigrants and there is a
large Polish population as well as other eastern Europeans and political considerations are
always come into play.
This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly
defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia.
G.W. Bush basically continued the trend with regard to NATO but was preoccupied with 9/11
more than anything else. Bush thought that he understood Putin and even invited him to his
ranch in Crawford, Texas which Putin accepted and they did seem to get along.
However 2008
and the Georgia War began the slide in relations between the two countries. Then good old
Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign
policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current
POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and
nail.
Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by
sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that
need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and
Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from
Kaliningrad could be accomplished.
Many have tried, usually ended up in those infamous endless Russian fields, in long boxes.
See Pushkin, for the exact quote. But historical trivialities aside, there should be a way to
satisfy Imperial hubris without 'salting the grounds'. Hannibal's elephants did not carry
nukes in their trunks. Trying for the sixth time in the last 4 centuries to get Moscow
grounds salted might end badly for the entire planet.
Trust was not breached by Russia, military buildup, hostile threatening military, NATO
expansion and refusal to negotiate on these issues did not originate from Russia. Russia has
tried to negotiate, concede and de-escalate before. The West did not respond to those moves.
Even US sanctions placed on Soviet Union were not removed from Russia, despite there being no
reason for them to remain in place. This and other recent events (libya, iran deal etc) tells
Russia and other global players that de-escalating with the West doesn't work.
Even now, West seems to be interested to trade with Russia at least in some areas. And
Europe is increasingly frustrated with the United States. There is reportedly a number of EU
initiatives aimed at gradually limiting US economic levers created during the Cold War.
Rising economies will gradually offer more opportunities outside of the Western world.
Multipolar wolrd was a slogan in the 00s, in the 2040es it might be a reality.
We know NATO will not maintain ABM and CFE, and it is apparently not interested in INF and
Open Skies, and even START is in question now. NATO will withdraw troops if only Russia does
something? Please, you don't really believe that. With INF gone, Iskander is outdated, it was
a treaty-limited weapon. Moving it a few hundred klicks will not make NATO concede anything
now.
A huge trust maker would be for all NATO members to publically admit on their web page
that pledges to Russia were broken and at least some NATO officials feel responsibility for
that. They've spent 27 years denying any verbal assurances, now that those assurances are
declassified, they build other narratives about how those pledges did not matter. For there
to be trust, there needs to be an admission that trust was there, and was broken, and not by
Russia. No troop movements necessary even.
Biden isn't going to win the next election Trump will be reelected in 2020. The current
strain in relations with Russia has been inherited by Trump and even before he was elected
the DNC and Hillary Clinton cooked up the "Russia colusion" story which after $46 million and
2 1/2 years no Russia collision. Of course now we have the Dems trying to impeach Trump which
will not go anywhere in the Senate more waste of time and money. However there is the Justice
Department I.G. report soon to be released and many of the people who brought you the Russia
colusion hoax will be named. The Justice Department has an ongoing criminal investigation
into the key players and will undoubtedly result in indictments and prosecutions.
The real reason all of this is going on is because the establishment both Dem's & Repub's
along with the deep state look at Trump as an outsider who is tipping over their apple cart
i.e. he is changing the foreign policy direction and they don't like it one bit so they
create fake issues to try and stop him.
After his reelection I predict that more normal relations with Russia will resume.
Nowadays the actual attacks are manifested as 'hybrid warfare'. Of course Russia took the
US intervention and financing of Chechen rebels as an attack back in the 2000 ties. She took
fermenting and financing of the Georgian rose revolution as a hybrid attack, same as promises
made to pres. Saakashvili to support him militarily and politically after his attack on
Tskhinvali were taken as a hybrid attack. Same goes for both of the first color revolution in
Ukraine, and then the Revolution of dignity of 2014 that pushed ultra-right government to
power in Ukraine. In fact the NATO promise to both Georgia and Ukraine to take them in as
members in 2008 right after Putin's warning in 2007 was the first move in the 'hybrid war'.
The West had been warned, yet it decided to bulldoze its way across Eurasia and triggered the
confrontation. The placings of Aegises ashore in Poland and Romania was the cherry on top.
There can be be no meaningful compromise until the West backs off on the NATO enlargement.
That 2008 conference was what had reanimated the image of the collective West as adversary
for Russia.
What both sides should strive for though is at the very least to diminish the degree of
danger to the planet. Russia would not back off because she finds it easy enough to corner
individual EU states into minimal economic cooperation - Germany is already in recession and
there is no way they are going to continue damaging their economy for the sake of US
politics. And then there is China. When the Russians cannot buy goods from Germans they go
for made in China, which in turn gets China secure oil and gas from Russia. Which make the
repeat of pre-WW II situation with blockade on Japan pretty much impossible. Get realistic,
the West is loosing this one and should count her chickens already.
Well, then the sanctions will continue, as will the policy of keeping Russian in check in
the EU gas market.
What's interesting is that NATO never attacked Russia or threatened to attack Russia. Seems
to me that Putin is simply using the expansion as a pretext for military aggression against
the neighboring states. It's what the USSR did in 1939 against Finland. According the Soviet
side, the war started after Finland attacked the Soviet Union...
Russia *needs* the sanctions for at least another 5 years. Her milk and beef production is
still lagging compared to the deceased USSR and the only way her greedy oligarchs will
heavily invest in cow herd rearing is to continue to block the Eastern European milk products
to enter Russia. Chicken, eggs, pork and veggies are already up to speed, wheat production is
exploding, the salmon breeding programme have started so the Norway is not getting her market
back, bu the cow herds take longer to rear.
The Power of Siberia pipeline is being certified and filled right now - China would receive
her first delivery of piped Russian gas in 2020, so it is good that EU is prepping or the
squeeze - they are not going to continue getting unlimited cheap Russian gas, because Power
of Siberia II is in the works.
Every individual NATO member had attacked Russia in the past 4 centuries ( including small
but meaningful US contingent in the 1918), and some non-member allies had stomped those
fields as well. So the Russians are not taking any chances with the buffer zone. All of
Russia expansions to the West have always started with West invading first - then being
rolled back league by league. But seriously - ? Russians can live with Europe staying where
she is - if in turn Europe can learn to respect her civilization borders. The move on Ukraine
and Georgia was not a wise one.
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Introduction: I recently spoke to a
relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely
believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous
economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past
and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was
probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked
Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to
reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once
again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.
* * *
The Saker:
The US
propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed
to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing
growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three
Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the "showcase" Soviet republics, with a high standard of
living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including
defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following
independence? How did they "reform" their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern "liberal" one?
Michael Hudson:
This is
a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by "success."
The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a
great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to
prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage
or reorganize them.
Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era
industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed
down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax
policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of
former officials and grabitizers.
Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and
NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated
by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit
creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia
suffering the world's biggest contraction.
The neoliberal western advisors who took
control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing
austerity programs to restore macroeconomic "stability" meaning security of their land and infrastructure
grabs. This was applauded by Europe's bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe
allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed
governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers,
allowed these governments to survive.
It's a historically specific situation,
but Europe's bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros's INET and his associated front
institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a
massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.)
Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries
and can be reversed at any time.
Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S.
Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose "free market"
doctrine – that is, a market "free" of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against
monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the
former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.
What was left to the Baltic countries
was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my
book
Killing the Host
.
The Saker:
After
independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included
building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to
shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories
(including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of "economic
de-Sovietization" on the local economies?
Michael Hudson:
Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant
that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to
some extent, Asia.
Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology,
and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they
were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.
Banking also was a surviving sector.
Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the
1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks
continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain
and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.
The Saker:
Russians are still considered "non-citizens"
in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian
discrimination in the Baltic states?
ORDER IT NOW
Michael Hudson:
Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests),
are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age
have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.
Early on in independence, many Russians
were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the
Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For
instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely
focused on real estate.
The largest political party is Harmony
Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist
parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.
Since Russian speakers are only able to
"vote with their feet," many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to
other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.
The Saker:
I often hear that a huge number of locals
(including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the
impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?
Michael Hudson:
The Baltic states, especially Latvia,
have lost about 30 percent of their population since the 1990s, especially those of working age. In Latvia,
about 10 percent of the loss were Russians who exited shortly after independence. The other 20 percent have
subsequently emigrated.
The European Commission forecasts that Latvia's working-age population
will decline by 1.6% annually for the next 20 years, while the birth rate remains as stagnant as it was in
the late 1980s. The retired population (over age 65) will rise to half a million people by 2030, more than a
quarter of today's population, and perhaps about a third of what remains. This is not a domestic market that
will attract foreign or local investment.
And in any case, the European Union has
viewed the post-Soviet economies simply as markets for their own industrial and agricultural exports, not as
economies to be built up by public subsidy as the European countries themselves, the U.S. and Chinee
economies have done. The European motto is, "Give a man a fish, and he will be fed all day with your surplus
fish and consumer goods – but give him a fishing rod and we will lose a customer."
Readers who are interested might want to
look at the following books and articles. I think the leading work has been done by Jeffrey Sommers and
Charles Woolfson.
The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Baltic Model
(London:
Routledge Press, 2014). Editors, J. Sommers & C. Woolfson. Foreword, J. Galbraith. ISBN:
978-0-415-82003-5.
Jeffrey Sommers, "No People, Big Problem': Democracy And Its Discontents In Latvia's National
Elections,"
Social Europe,
October 17, 2018.
Jeffrey Sommers, "Decline of the Demos: Latvia, the Face of New Europe and Austerity's Return," in F.
Jaitner, T. Olteanu and T. Spöri, eds.,
Crises in the Post-Soviet Space: From the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to the conflict in Ukraine
(Routledge Press, 2018) pp. 195-209. ISBN 9780815377245.
Jeffrey Sommers,
"
Austerity as a global prescription and lessons from the neoliberal
Baltic experiment."
Economic & Labour Relations Review.
Keynote article, 25:3 (fall 2014) pp.
1-20. DOI 10.1177/1035304614544091. Co-authored with C. Woolfson and A. Juskaa.
The Saker:
Finally,
what do you believe is the most likely future for these states? Will the succeed in becoming a "tiny
anti-Russia" on Russia's doorstep? The Russians appear to have been very successful in their
import-substitution program, at least when trying to replace the Baltic states: does that mean that the
economic ties between Russia and these states is now gone forever? Is it now too late, or are there still
measures these countries could take to reverse the current trends?
Michael Hudson:
Trump's
trade sanctions against Russia hurt the Baltic countries especially. One of their strong sectors was
agriculture. Lithuania, for instance, was known for its cheese, even in Latvia. The sanctions led Russian
dairy farming to develop their own cheese-making, and agriculture has become one of Russia's strongest
performing sectors.
This is a market that looks like it will
be permanently lost to the Baltic states. In effect, Trump is helping Russia follow precisely the policy
that made American agriculture rich: agricultural isolation has forced domestic replacement for hitherto
foreign food. I expect that this will lead to consumer goods and other products as well.
I am in Tallinn, Estonia right now. Just how good an economy is performing is often hard to determine by
talking to people, because like economists, many people have different perceptions. I was just talking to a
Russian-Estonian who was telling me how much better Lithuanians and Latvians are then Estonians at doing
things and how much cheaper things are there. It is true that things are much cheaper in the other Baltic
countries because Estonia (a tiny country of just over 1 million people) has taken off. Since the 2008
econmic collapse housing prices have shot up and in Tallinn there is building going on all over the city.
But, my acquaintance is wrong about other things. Estonians do things very well and Tallinn is a very nice
city, with beautiful cafes, clean and well kept streets and crime is very low. It is a very good city,
except it is now very expensive, especially considering how much people make here. The weather is not nice,
except for in the summer and there are friendly Estonians but they don't have a reputation for being
particularly friendly, even among themselves. I have not been back to Latvia yet, but when I was in Riga
years ago, it was a gorgeous city, bigger than Tallinn too. I think they do things very well there too. The
Russians I speak to here are often friendly and based on what I have been told, relations between Russians
and Estonians are much better than when I was here in the early 2000's.
No offense is intended to
Russians, but the Baltic countries had large German populations that played a key role in the development of
the cultures and peoples of these countries. There were also many Jews here prior to WW II. By the time WW
II had begun the German populations were much smaller than they had been and at the end of the war the
Jewish populations were much smaller. Jews were targeted in Latvia and Lithuania and many Latvians,
Lithuanians and Estonians were shipped off to far off places in the USSR during the war. I believe the Jews
were largely pro communist and welcomed the Soviet takeover of these countries in 1940, while the Latvian
and Estonian peoples were pro German, thus explaining the hard feelings between Balts and Jews.. They wanted
independence and formed legions to fight alongside the German army during WW II.
These countries were very advanced before WW II, having engineering industries and the Russian Empire's
first auto company was formed in Riga before WW I. While engineering may have been restarted after WW II,
these countries populations were decimated and they never returned to their former heights. Perhaps they
still can.
I'm assuming that these 3 East European countries are being bombarded with the same propaganda as the Ukies
are, so Russian speakers and those intelligent enough to see the game being played will be belittled and
isolated. But the Russian folks living in Russia have a birds eye view of what is going on in the west and
their puppet countries. Russia TV and debate programs, just have to show the delinquencies that are daily
happenings in the States, and Europe, in order to make the Ru people say – No Thanks to that way of life. As
far as the new Russian cheeses that are now in the markets -lol – they make a lightly smoked gouda that is
really good and is about 120-140 roubles a kilo. And, they are making more cheddar that is a white medium
taste as well. No scarcity of good natural food in Russia and No POlice state. Spacibo Unz Rev.
The trade volume between Russia and the Baltic states has actually risen, despite the sanctions. The Baltics
send food products and booze to Russia (and another 150 countries, food exports to Russia actually grew in
2016-2018). As well as chemical products and pharmaceuticals. Meldonium, btw, is made in Latvia and is still
being sent to Russia (as well as 20 other countries), not for athletes, but for regular folks. Work is being
carried out on a new generation Meldonium pill (the biggest market will be Russia).
Growth in the Baltic states has been 3-4% in the last few years. GDP per capita, as well as HDI, is
higher than in Russia. Foreign investment, including from Russia, has been growing (Russia was the second
largest investor in Latvia in 2018). Savings rates are growing, too. After a relative quiet period after
2010, the number of Russian (and other tourists) has grown again.
Estonia's population stopped shrinking in 2016 and is now growing in fact. They've seen immigration from
Finland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as returning Estonians.
Emigration is a problem, of course, but this is partly because the Baltic states are the only former USSR
republics whose citizens were even given work permits in the West, imagine what would happen if these
permits were given to Russians from the regions.
Neo-liberal policies are of course bad and certain types of investment should be controlled, but to say
that there are no social services in the Baltic states is complete nonsense. Due to generous parental
payments, birthrates have risen significantly since the 1990s – in fact, birthrates in the Baltics are now
slightly higher than the EU average. Life expectancy is also growing. Latvia covers IVF treatments in full.
There are free school lunches.
Yes, it is true that some of the Soviet era factories should've been salvaged but the problem was they
were not competitive globally at that time (and there was no capital to remodel them). The Soviet market was
a closed one. However, some businesses were salvaged. There is local manufacturing (electronics,
pharmaceuticals, etc).
Not everything is ideal, but it is also not the kind of gloom and doom as you paint.
Saker says:
"Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not
mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies?"
"Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt":
"Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption And there are few
better examples than Ukraine – just don't tell the House impeachment hearings. Counting on foreign aid to
reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism .If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would
have become a rule of law paradise long ago . The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid."
@onebornfree
The EU gives every year about 2,500 million euros to the 3 Baltic countries ( 6 million people the three of
them ) , and 9000 million euros to Poland ( 38 million people ) , plus more billions to other eastern
members .
Older members of the EU , specially the UK which is going out , Greece witch was tortured ( again )
economically by Germany , and south Europe in general are not very happy about admitting so many ex-soviets
countries en the EU and subsidizing them .
Recovery and self-sufficiency since Yeltsin show the brilliance of the Russian people
It's not so much brilliance as sheer necessity to survive under sanctions. But some results were better
than anyone expected. Say, food before sanctions used to be so-so in the provinces and downright bad in
Moscow because of abundance of imported crap. Now the food is exclusively domestic, fresh and tasty. Russia
never had traditions of making fancy cheeses. Now, to bypass sanctions, quite a few Italian and French
cheese-makers started production in Russia, so in the last 2-3 years domestically made excellent fancy
cheeses appeared in supermarkets. Arguably, Russian agriculture benefited by sanctions more than any other
sector, but there are success stories virtually in every industry. Sanctions and Ukrainian stupidity served
as a timely wake up call for Russian elites, who earlier wanted to sell oil and natural gas and buy
everything else. Replacing imports after the sanctions were imposed had a significant cost in the short run,
but in the long run it made Russia much stronger, economically and militarily. Speak of unintended
consequences.
My mom is from Lithuania and I've been there several times. We have second cousins our age.
Her father was
a surveyor for the Republic in the 20s and 30s, charged with breaking up the manors and estates and the
state distributing the land to the peasantry. It was near-feudalism. There was very little
industrialization; that which existed were in a few urban centers. One interesting comment from her was that
the "Jews were communists". From what I've read they were the urban working class, but perhaps part of the
socialist/Jewish Bund?
There is no doubt that the Soviet period unleashed considerable industrialization and modernization.
Lithuania had some of the best infrastructure in the USSR. Its traditional culture was really celebrated.
When I first visited, not long after the fall of the USSR, there were enormous, vacant industrial plants.
The collective farms were in the process of being sold off the western European agribusiness firms. One
relative through marriage was from the Ukraine, with a PhD in Physics and had been employed in the military
industries -- she was cleaning houses thereafter.
Any usable industrial enterprises were quickly sold off. The utilities are all foreign owned. Part of EU
mandates are "open" electricity "markets", which resulting in DC interconnections costing hundreds of
millions with the west to import very high priced electricity. The EU has paid for "Via Baltica", a highway
running from Poland to Estonia; it is choked with trucks carrying imports and there are huge distribution
and fulfillment centers along the highway. Such progress, huh?
There had been good public transport in the earlier years of independence, but that has been replaced
with personal automobiles -- usually western European used cars that pollute a lot. Trakai is a commuter town
to Vilnius with a medieval castle (restored in Soviet times). First time I went it was very pleasant. Second
time in 2018 the place was choked with cars and not very nice at all.
The impact of emigration cannot be over-stated. College educated young people leave by the hundreds
of thousands. Those that remain are paid very low wages (e.g., 1000 euros for a veterinarian or dentist),
but pay west European prices for many essentials. Housing is cheaper than the west.
Last time in Kazlu Ruda there were huge NATO exercises in progress and even bigger ones planned for 2020.
German units were billeted at an airbase nearby, rumored to have been a CIA black site. How fitting, as the
Germans with the Lithuanian Riflemens Union exterminated a quarter of a million Jews in a matter of months
(see Jager Report on Wikipedia). There is a Red Army graveyard in the town that has the remains of perhaps
350 soldiers killed in the area driving out the Nazis. I was frankly surprised it was still there.
Lithuania hasn't been independent since the days of the Pagans and Vytautas. It surely isn't independent
today.
Anecdotal -- yes. But based on personal observation.
An Iranian parliamentary faction has come up with the idea of establishing a club of
sanctioned countries for concerted action against the US economic terrorism.
The chairman of the Parliament's faction on countering sanctions, Poormokhtar, gave a report
on the formation of the faction and its activities, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish
the club of sanctioned countries. Iran's FM, Zaraf, said this would be enhancing the already
existing alliance of Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela against US economic
terrorism.
PressTV: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela are among the nations that have
come out against the United States' use of sanctions to enforce its foreign policy around the
world. In what ways can they fight these US sanctions as a group?
Peter Koenig: Brilliant idea! Solidarity makes stronger and eventually will attract other
countries who are sick and tired of the US sanction regime, and since they have the backing of
Russia and China, that's a very strong alliance, especially an economic alliance. The sanction
regime can only be broken through economics, meaning decoupling from the western monetary
system. I said this before and say it again, at the risk of repeating myself.
After all, China is the world's largest and strongest economy in Purchasing Power GDP
measures which is the only comparison that really counts. I believe this solidarity alliance
against US sanctions is certainly worth a trial.
And personally, I think it will be a successful trial, as more countries will join, possibly
even non-sanctioned ones, out of solidarity against a common tyrant.
The countries in solidarity against sanctions, in addition to ignoring them -- and the more
they ignore them, the more other countries will follow-suit -- that's logical as fear
disappears and solidarity grows.
For example, Iran and Venezuela, oil exporting countries, could accompany their tankers by
war ships. Yes, it's an extra cost, but think of it as temporary and as a long-term gain. Would
"Grace I" have been accompanied by an Iranian war ship the Brits would not have dared
confiscating it. That's for sure.
PressTV: Many of the US sanctions have led to death of civilians in those particular
countries. At the same time, sanctions have also led to the improvement of these countries to
the point where domestic production in various fields advanced. Don't sanctions become
country-productive to US aims?'
PK: Of course, the sanctions are counter-productive. They have helped Russia to become
food-self-sufficient, for example. That was not Washington's intention and less so the
intention of the EU, who followed Washington's dictate like puppets.
Sanctions are like a last effort before the fall of the empire, to cause as much human
damage as possible, to pull other nations down with the dying beast. It has always been like
that starting with the Romans through the Ottoman's. They realize their time has come but can't
see a world living in peace. So they must plant as much unrest and misery as possible before
they disappear
That's precisely what's happening with the US.
Intimidation, building more and more military bases, all with fake money, as we know the
dollar is worth nothing – FIAT money – that the world still accepts but less
and less so, therefore military bases, deadly sanctions, and trade wars. Trump knows that a
trade war against China is a lost cause. Still, he can intimidate other countries by insisting
on a trade war with China or that's what he thinks.
PressTV: The more countries US sanctions, illegally, more people turn against the US:
doesn't that defeat the US so-called fight against terrorism and violence?
PK: Well, US sanction and the entire scheme of US aggression has nothing to do with fighting
terrorism, as you know. It's nothing but expanding US hegemony over the world, and if needed,
and more often than not, the US finances terrorism to fight proxy wars against their so-called
enemies, meaning anybody not conforming to their wishes and not wanting to submit to their
orders and not letting them exploit – or rather steal – their natural
resources.
Syria is a case in point. ISIL is funded and armed by the Pentagon, who buys Serbian
produced weapon to channel them through the Mid-East allies to Syrian terrorists, the ISIL or
similar kinds with different names -- just to confuse.
Venezuela too – the opposition consist basically of US trained, financed and armed
opposition "leaders" – who do not want to participate in totally democratic elections
– order of the US – boycott them. But as we have seen as of this day, the various
coup attempts by the US against their legitimate and democratically elected President,
Nicolás Maduro, have failed bitterly, and this despite the most severe sanctions regime
South American has known, except for Cuba, against whom the US crime has been perpetuated for
60 years.
So, nobody should have the illusion that Washington's wars are against terrorism. Washington
is THE terrorist regime that fights for world hegemony.
"... Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the targeted regimes. ..."
"... At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion. In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million barrels. ..."
"... The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries. ..."
"... The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer, agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy supplies to Europe. ..."
"... As stated by Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program. ..."
"... The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage. ..."
"... In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach, increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is transited each day? ..."
"... It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump publicly and repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President. ..."
"... The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on systems that are controlled by the USA. ..."
"... Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a city. ..."
"... John Bolton is clueless. He's a throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an idiot. ..."
"... Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get their balance sheets under control. ..."
Yves here. Even though most
readers know the general point very well, that US trade and financial sanctions haven't brought
targets to their knees, and had instead pushed them to find allies, but it's useful to have
detail to flesh out the story. There are some bits one can quibble with, like the "annexation
of Crimea" bit, and the US objectives for its sanctions against Russia. At least under the
Obama Administration, the belief was that they would damage the economy severely and force a
regime change.
By Robert Berke, an energy financial analyst with experience as a government consultant
to the State of Alaska. Originally published at
OilPrice
Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual
military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the
targeted regimes.
A prime example was President Obama sanctioning Russia over its annexation of Crimea. The
sanctions were designed to block Russia from any access to western financing, aimed at causing
a dire financial and economic crisis in Russia that would force it to relinquish Crimea and end
support for Ukraine's breakaway territories.
In fact, the sanctions did cause Russia to enter a short-lived recession. But it also had
other, much more drastic results for the West. It forced Russia to move closer to China, and
Moscow saw Beijing as a great alternative to western financing for Russian industries.
At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because
of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic
joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion.
In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million
barrels.
As noted by Reuters, the withdrawal was costly:
Exxon will post an after-tax loss of $200 million as a result of pulling out of the
Rosneft deal, but the true costs for the company run much deeper. Exploring and developing
giant offshore fields in Russia was supposed to provide long-term growth for the company,
and, in recent years, has seen falling reserves.
But the opportunity losses are likely to be far higher for Exxon, the company that famously
missed the US shale revolution. The long-term deal with Rosneft, expected to continue for
decades, included exploration for oil in the Black Sea, enormous shale resources in Western
Siberia, and the development of three large blocks in the Arctic (Kara Sea).
The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports
to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute
mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an
alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries.
China's major state-owned oil companies and its Silk Road fund each became 10% partners in
Russia's first major Arctic LNG (liquified natural gas), project in the Yamal Peninsula,
undertaken with Novatek, Russia's largest independent gas producer. The project offers great
prospects for enormous expansion.
The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years
before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer,
agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia
has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy
supplies to Europe.
A similar scenario is taking place in the Persian Gulf where the US has withdrawn from the
Iran nuclear deal, while imposing economic sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The French energy
giant, Total, that in recent years has been a leading international oil company in that
country, was forced to withdraw because of sanctions, just like Exxon in Russia's Arctic, it
left billions of dollars on the table.
This may also answer the question as to why French Prime Minister Macron was so intent on
inviting the Iranian Foreign Secretary to the recent G7 meeting in France. It's also no secret
that French carmakers Peugeot and Renault are the main suppliers to Iran's auto assembly
plants.
As stated by
Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing
Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a
bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again
become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to
develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve
transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program.
The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and
petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus
an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using
local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the
Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage.
GBS further reports that the security for these projects will include up to 5,000 Chinese
security personnel on the ground in Iran to protects Chinese projects and to safeguard the
transit of energy products from Iran to China, including security for the very strategic Hormuz
Straits.
In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach,
increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance
partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If
the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own
borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is
transited each day?
If these are considered winning policies for the West, one has to ask what failure looks
like.
The West is already slowly becoming aware of the blowback this disastrous policy has caused.
Evidence for this can be found in Macron's efforts to persuade Trump towards a peaceful
resolution with Iran.
It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to
the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump
publicly and
repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg
also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease
sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary
Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong
opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that
Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President.
The firing of Bolton was
immediately followed by a fall in the price of oil and gold. Allowing Iran to continue to
increase supplies into already well supplied oil markets will add downward pressure on oil
prices. For the Trump administration, this is not necessarily a bad thing unhappy consumers at
the gas pump make for unhappy voters.
Similarly, the Trump Administration badly needs to move towards ending the trade war with
China in order to calm global markets. The recent announcement of the resumption of trade talks
between the US and China in October may provide an opportunity for a similar easing of tariffs
and a path towards further resolution.
Although these actions could help to quell global tensions, it may be too late to reverse
some of the serious damage caused by US-led economic warfare. Once China positions itself in
Iran, it will not likely be interested in withdrawing from its new strategic position in the
Middle East, that it gained as a result of US near sighted foreign policy.
Prior to the election, we may see a breakthroughs in the trade war, and the alleviation of
sanctions with Russia, Iran, China, and perhaps even North Korea, but the US will almost
certainly see the negative consequences from adversaries it helped to expand and
strengthen.
Can't speak much about the effects of the Chinese sanctions but I know a little bit about
the Russian ones. These Russian sanctions are biting hard but not the way they were intended
and it is not only the big oil companies that are losing big. Since they kicked in Russia has
lost about $50 billion in trade with the European Union which kinda stings. But in the same
time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion.
Considering that fact that these
sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US, that is a very
expensive price tag. The US lost only about $17 billion but I remember reading that after the
sanctions kicked in, trade between the U and Russia actually increased. Europe is a big loser
here, particularly with agriculture. When the EU sanctioned Russian products to the EU, the
Russians did the same to them a few weeks later which came as a shock. Since then Russia has
made huge investments into growing their own food crops and those markets will never come
back again for the EU. As an example, Russia is once more a world leader in the production of
wheat second only to the US and has learned the value of autarky.
You see these results in all sorts of areas as the country started phasing out imports and
replacing them with domestically made products. They even started making marine engines out
of necessity as they were denied purchase of foreign ones. People might remember how Russia
was going to buy two specially built ships from France but France reneged under pressure from
Washington.
France not only had to give back all the money the Russians paid but also had to
compensate Russia for all related costs that the Russians made. In the end France paid Russia
over a billion dollars which was triple what the Russians initially paid. And now the
Russians are constructing their own ships of this class in the Crimea using the knowledge
acquired from France. Perhaps it is things like this that has cause Macron to open up
contacts with Russia once more in spite of what Washington demands.
Add in the purchase of gold stocks, developing financial systems in case the US cuts
Russia off from the SWIFT clearance systems, the development of weaponry that makes the
deployment of nuclear missile systems in Europe futile, you realise that Washington has
massively underestimated the response of counties like Russia, China and Iran and depended on
unicorn wishes instead.
But in the same time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion. Considering
that fact that these sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US,
that is a very expensive price tag.
Well, Looks like Donald Trump let "The Swamp(tm)" run loose and they went and over-torqued
the screws!
Some decision makers in within the EU have begun to see the US sanctions against
everything and everyone as having the true goals of ablating EU's influence on the world
while hampering EU-based businesses. There are initiatives and polices that hints at "cutting
the cord" are quietly being introduced.
The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or
defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on
systems that are controlled by the USA.
The 'North Stream' pipeline and keeping the Iran deal kinda alive are more immediate and
direct challenges, as was the total unwillingness to join in any of the planned military
adventures involving Syria and Iran.
France is being rather open about about it. Possibly to test out on behalf of the EU what
the USA is actually willing to do to exact revenge and enforce compliance, possibly also
because opposing the USA in France remains a reliable way to win votes.
It's not just Trump. Our Congress is totally at the beck of special pleaders such as LNG
exporters and arms companies. All seek to use the US economic weapon to further their own
interests.
Plus, Russia is determinedly GMO free. The more the US goes down the GMO route, the less
likely the food trade with the EU – the European dogs wont eat GMO dogfood.
Post Brexit perhaps, Britain will accept US foods, all the more reason to insist on a proper
border if NI remains part of the 'UK'.
It's not just GMO, but the level and quality of technocratic oversight. US government
agencies are incapable of regulating anything in the private sector. While the EU is still
greatly influenced by private money, it has not completely sold out.
What is ignored by media is the harm sanctions inflict on the people living in these
countries. I think it should be considered a crime against humanity and our leaders should be
prosecuted. Sanctions are a weapon that is just as harmful as weapons to kill. We only seem
to look at the economic effects and ignore the social effects.
Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a
city.
I've known in a vague intuitive way that US sanctions would alienate nations and isolate
the US, it's useful seeing how exactly these sanctions are backfiring with more nuance!
What is the next step after you have sanctioned everything and everyone and the reaction
is a shrug and a work around? Sanctions do have their bite, but they are, or are becoming, a
more effective tool for global economic and political realignment than a means to accomplish
their stated purpose.
Good question. I am wondering the same thing. There is a vague pattern here with Russia,
the most resource-rich oil producer. We don't want Russia to take off too fast. What can be
left in the ground should be left in the ground. And maybe that was the existential threat
posed by Exxon – a private, profit seeking US corporation geared to do everything fast
in order to make their profits.
Just thinking about slamming the breaks on manufacturing and
consumption and how this can make a mess of the oil industry if it is going for profits
– race to the bottom (currently). Rather, anyone thinking straight would want to
conserve oil, control it's production and marketing. John Bolton is clueless. He's a
throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an
idiot.
There was a discussion of China's role in manufacturing drugs for Big Pharma on the news
last night, truly frightening.
They've already been found to be selling us contaminated drugs, what happens when they
refuse to deliver anything other than fentanyl?
I find it hard to understand how we're going to recover from the damage done by the
short-sighted, wholesale outsourcing of our manufacturing to China.
Given the centrality of drugs to American life, we should categorize them as sensitive
items of national security and declare a war on foreign drugs. That would brilliantly combine
the failed policies of the past with the failed policies of the present. We could make
exceptions for most-favored nations like Colombia or Afghanistan.
As in military conflicts, the fog of geoeconomic war together with partisan lens and poor
leadership can prevent adversaries from developing an accurate assessment of reality. The
writer has raised some examples that support his view pertaining to pushback, and he could be
right as The Rev Kev so eloquently pointed out here WRT Russia. However, whether his article
provides an accurate overview of the current state of play remains an open question IMO.
Setting aside deeply troubling questions about our national values and whether sanctions
should ever be employed due to their very damaging effects on domestic populations, together
with their evident past failure to realize policy goals, there are credible accounts that
China is now confronting a U.S. dollar shortage; that China has significant issues in its
financial system and economy; and that the people of China are seeing sharply rising food
prices as a result of decreased supplies of pork and soybeans. These issues are being
perceived as sufficient to cause China's leaders to be receptive to negotiating resolution of
the current tariffs, trade, intellectual property, and investment impasse on terms favorable
to the U.S. Whether this will be so remains to be seen, of course.
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history. It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work. The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus. China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it. Maximising profit is all about reducing costs. China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world. "The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
If the US left this running it would be China first and America second. PANIC!
It seems since about the Vietnam war era, US FP has been run by hubristic idiots with
delusions of grandeur. Its foreign policy 101 that you never, never, set policy to drive your
2 largest rivals to alliance.
Yet these morons did exactly that. Since Trump, there have been many retirements form the
State Dept.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. They show no evidence of competence.
Russia is leasing out old collective farm lands that was abandoned in the eastern part of
the country to Asian countries to farm and grow the export food products needed. It seems the
collective farms were abandoned and now the Russian government is re-purposing the vast
amounts of land available.
"Russia is now considering requests from Asian firms to farm another 1 million hectares
(2.5 million acres) -- an area roughly the size of Jamaica, according to the head of a
government agency."
It may be said that Trump's tariffs are the best things that could have happened to China
and Russia.
Frankly, I think it has pushed up consumer spending and that is about it. In other words,
this economy has overcapacity problems in the auto sector and its relation to junk corporate
debt, is not good.
Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and
manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get
their balance sheets under control.
Ukraine is mainly the result of attempt of the USA to encircle Russia well as EU design for economic
Drang nach Osten -- attempt to displace Russia in xUSSR
republics.
So they pushed Ukraine into the pat that Baltic republic were already known for.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a "first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000 civilians. ..."
"... In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept. ..."
"... She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience." ..."
"... Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion" in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War. ..."
"... NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ..."
"... To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of [Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II." ..."
"... Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military. ..."
"... American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches emblazoned on their sleeves. ..."
On Saturday September 7, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a prisoner swap which has brought
hope of improved relations between the two countries and an end to the 5-year long conflict in
Eastern Ukraine.
A peace accord is being planned for later this month in Normandy involving Ukraine, Russia,
France and Germany.
Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a
"first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000
civilians.
The Ukraine War remains largely unknown to the American public even though the United States
has had a great stake in it.
The war started after a coup d'états in Ukraine in February 2014, which overthrew the
democratically elected pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovuch.
In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for
independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept.
The United States was a heavy backer of the coup and dirty war that unfolded in the
East.
Victoria Nuland, the head of the State Department's European desk, traveled to Ukraine three
times during the protests that triggered the coup, handing out cookies to demonstrators.
She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and
later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime
Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience."
Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion"
in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on
the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War.
Ukraine has long been considered an important bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and
holds lucrative oil and gas deposits.
NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step
towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not
just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to
the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of
[Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II."
Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the
1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration
further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military.
It was supplied with counter-artillery radars, anti-tank systems, armored vehicles and
drones in a policy expanded upon by Trump.
Before and after the Ukrainian military's campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA
Director John Brennan, and Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev, followed by a flow of senior
Pentagon officials.
A back-door arms pipeline was set up through the United Arab Emirates and Blackwater
mercenaries were allegedly deployed.
American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket
propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including
with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches
emblazoned on their sleeves.
Obama's National Security adviser, Samantha Power, claimed that the [Ukrainian] governments
"response [to alleged provocations by eastern rebels] [was] reasonable, it is proportional, and
frankly it is what any of our countries would have done."
The Ukrainian military and allied warlord and neo-Nazi militias were not acting reasonably
or proportionally, however, when they carried out artillery and air attacks on cities and
struck residential buildings, shopping malls, parks, schools, hospitals and orphanages in
Eastern Ukraine, and tortured and executed POWs in what amounted to clear war crimes.
NYU Professor Stephen Cohen notes that even TheNew York Times , which mainly
deleted atrocities from its coverage, described survivors in Slovyansk living "as if in the
Middle Ages."
That the American public knows nothing of these events is a sad reflection of the
superficiality of our media and decline in the quality of international news coverage.
It is also a testament to the failing of the political left, which has embraced the cause of
immigrant and Palestinian rights and fighting climate change, legitimately, but neglected the
plight of the Eastern Ukrainian people. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jeremy Kuzmarov
Nice plan, except it's too late. I don't think Russia will agree to this proposal. The
West is very antagonized both in Russian elites and common people. Even if some high
ranking officials will be happy to struck a deal common people will still perceive USA
and the west as enemies. On the contrary China's reputation and karma is not as tainted
as America's in the eyes of the majority in Russia. At this point any concession given to
West will be met with disdain.
Correct. NATO has thousands of troops on the Russian border and surrounds Western
Russia by land and sea ... meanwhile the US preparing new cruise missile programs to be
stationed in the EU... Putin would be a fool to play nice in the face of such a military
buildup... in fact, he'd be deposed if he tried. No... the die is cast... the
Russia-China Alliance is tightly cemented.
Doug Bandow gives fair and reasoned arguments. The current trend appears to be towards
war. The question of enticing Moscow away from Beijing is a logical one. But does Russia
fear China as an enemy more than it fears America? Who would benefit from hostilities
between these two – America? That would not serve Russia's strategic interests.
The challenge in the 21st century is not repeating the mistakes of the twentieth.
History shows vital interests drive nations to war: but it is in nobody's interest to
fight a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I don't think here in Russia we fear anyone. We live in an era of powerful
thermonuclear weapons. Russia has fully operational nuclear triad with thousands of
warheads. Any military scenario against us trigger a final judgement day for human
civilization. President Putin openly said that. At this point Russia is more or less
isolationist trying to sever itself from global production chains to be more independent.
The trade with US is minuscule, so basically US has the stick but lacks carrot. On the
other hand China lacks what Russia really needs, so it's more of an allie of convenience.
Basically all Russia needs is being left alone and being able to influence it's own
region. Vast natural resources and population can really provide this kind of
isolationism. But the US can't stop poking the bear, so enraged bear can really be pissed
and provide China a helping hand.
Isolated from US and vassals doesn't mean completelly isolated. As author mentioned G7
is only 1/10 of World's population. And France, Germany and Italy are eager to restore
pre-sanction relations. Also having China, power on the rise (contrary to declining West)
in your corner is a very good thing.
"However, Beijing's widespread, sometimes brutal crackdown at home, increasingly
threatening approach to both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and more aggressive stance toward
territorial disputes challenge common Western interests and values. "
What "brutal crackdown"? I presume he means HK but the response of the Chinese gov is
hardly brutal. On the contrary, the authorities there have been been far more passive and
restrained than the west would be. Try shutting down a major US airport with a
demonstration and see long it takes for US robo-cops to cover the tiled floors in
protester blood and fill jail cells with unconscious bodies. Consider the (mostly
unreported) brutality in France as M(i)cron orders his gendarmes to use force to suppress
growth of the Gilets Jaunes movement.
What "aggressive stance" to territorial disputes? Chinese aren't blockading any areas
of the SCS and are not preventing freedom of navigation. They have claimed a number of
SCS rocks and minor islands, but the fact remains that none of the largest 18 islands are
Chinese controlled yet no-one wants to level the same charges against Taiwan,
Philippines, Vietnam or Malaysia that control them. The Chinese maintain an active
military presence around their own bases in the SCS, but they don't act to stop other
traffic in the area, and no-one has any actual legitimate business with these isolated
rocks, either now or before the ChiComs claimed them.
Bandow is spinning a load of BS with these and other assertions of a fake reality. Its
just part of a superficial narrative intended to support the idea of a "benevolent and
democratic" US selflessly guarding the "free world" against an "authoritarian police
state" that is "challenging and undermining the global rules-based system". It a load of
baloney that well-expired but Bandow the organ-grinder keep turning the handle to make
the public monkies dance for the amusement and hidden agendas of Cato Institutes elites
paymasters.
"Kyiv would be left to forge whatever economic ties it desired east and west."
Really? When did the ruling elites of the US and EU change their policies? It was the
refusal of the Eurotrash to accept Ukraine accepting Russian cash and economic assistance
in 2014 that led to the Ultra-nationalist putsch with US/EU full support. Yanukovich
wanted a deal and the EU refused to give him one he could accept, then threw their weight
behind his forced removal and shut-out the possibility of Ukraine having economic
relations with its largest trading partner (Russia).
BTW in English we have always spelled the city as Kiev, not Kyiv. Bandow is clearly
pandering to the Ukropi nationalists and anti-Russia radicals.
"In return, Russia could abandon support for Donbas rebels in Ukraine, grant Kyiv full
navigational access in contested waters, and stop using natural gas as a weapon."
Russia isn't about to abandon Donbass while the Ukies show no regard for civilian
lives in their incessant shelling attacks and repeated violations of "truces". Kiev is
attacking Donbass and intent on advancing, not the other way around, so a cessation of
conflict is in their court, not Donetsk or Lugansk.
Kiev has full access to "contested waters" (presumably access to the Azov Sea) but
they need to follow protocols. It is their refusal to play by the rules (and the
deliberate provocations by the SBU) that is the crux of the problems.
Russia doesn't use natural gas as a weapon. She simply sells gas to willing customers
(who buy it from her due to good prices and a long established record as a reliable
supplier). Russia is understandably looking for alternative routes of transit to avoid
nations that are her traditional antagonists and who wish to use gas transit as leverage
over her. Why should Russia allow unfriendly nations to have the ability to shutdown her
gas exports? Ukraine was stealing gas for years which led to the cessation of gas
supplies while custody transfer violations were investigated and stopped. Why should
Russia maintain transit through unfriendly nations and allow them to gain transit fees?
If they cease their Russia-baiting BS things might change, but that is their decision to
make, and Russia will act in the meantime according to her interests.
Doug Bandow tries to play the moderate but he recycles the worst agitprop tropes about
Russia. To be expected from a minion of the Cato Institute I suppose...
I would highly recommend that Doug Bandow get a lecture in Russian Foreign Politics.
This is not just a market with a handful dollar. Bandow might be a visiting Student a
MGIMO for Russian Foreign Politics which is based on trust and reliability for years.
Besides, Peking is by far the largest economic Partner of Russia. President Putin is not
interested on G7 membership. It lacks results and is a further "bla, bla" Organisation
without any success. Economic sanctions are more an issue for western Europe. As example
Francs lost 50% of their Russian Trade about 12B USD.
US inferior Foreign Politics lacks all of it. It's an Ad-Hoc organised Ministry with
interference from the President.
Aren't these guys really stup!d? They are discussing should Russia be in G8 or not,
while Putin many times said that this organization is useless for Russia! :-)))
"... EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me. ..."
> 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.
Posted by: Passer by | Aug 20 2019 13:15 utc
You think "harming Russia" is a good answer to question "how does it boost USA the
hegemon?". Well, let's suppose it...
Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP GDP.
It is "average temperature in hospital", where some patients are in 41C fever and others in
4C morgue, but on average they all have that healthy 36,6C.
However, even for those sanctions that did hit Russia and EU hard (and those were enacted
mostly in 2015), under the "China-Russia double helix" model, economic soft power is Chinese
responsibility, so targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming, like would
be targetting China militarily.
Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist Russian officials for
sanctions" and do the search in both pro-Clinton Google and in DDG. first page of Google has
zero relebvant results. DDG however starts with
Trump Administration Sends Congress List of Possible Russia ...
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html
Congress has tied Trump's hands on Russian sanctions - Vox
www.vox.com/2017/7/29/16061878/trump-russian-sanctions-sign
Congress Forces Trump to Sanction Russia - Fash the Nation
fashthenation.com/2018/03/congress-forces-trump-to-sanction-russia/
Trump Finally Imposes Russia Sanctions That Congress Ordered ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/trump-finally-imposes-russia-sanctions-that-congress-ordered-months-ago/
Is 2017 so far ago that we already forgot it? Trump has no freedom of choice to sanction
Russia or not. It is not his authority to make this choice. Trump is ordered to sanction and
he would do. If he has any leeway, it is to how specifically sanction, but even that choice
is framed into UIS domestic politic fuel, as a vehicle to fry Trump over being "Putin's shil"
and looking "not enough" into evil Russians.
> China postponed for overtaking the US in gdp MER to 2032 from 2024.
Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with propaganda. If
you don't buy Trump's tweets about "China begging for deal" and Obama's about "Russian
economy in tatters" - why to buy these estimations?
> Indian growth downgraded - which taken together with China means slowing down Asia's
rise.
Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But I do not think Trump
did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
Same for the Brazil fiasco, which i perceive was much heavier blow upon BRICS than Modi.
But Brazilian coup was in preparation yet before Trump's oath. May 2016 was the FINAL act,
prepared months before:
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/americas/brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeachment.html
> 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.
Long term? like Trump is planning for long term? Would he, like Putin, still be American
president in 2016+18=2034 ?
Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?
Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket. Before JCPOA Iran was flirting
with "Lesser Satan" a lot, promising to buy russian airliners, promising to barter Iranian
goods (oil and others) for Russian goods, thus de facto letting Russia be quasi-monopolistic
seller of Iranian goods on world market for any margin Russia would manage to extract. All
those hints and kinda-plans were squashed instantly after JCPOA. Iran rushed to trade with EU
directly, to buy Boeing and Airbis jets.... But was shot into the leg before it started. I
think China would also find their way to be "big helping brother" to Iranian economy, on some
conditions of course.
> Venezueala in deep recession
True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree. If Team Trump ready to
exclude USA from global trade - it would have to secure oil supply. Enslaving a nearby
oil-containing nation would do.
Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations
lists 2014 as start of economic sanctions against Venezuela. So, Trump has inherited "office
of Venezuelan affairs" from Cinton/Obama. And... he brought it to light and headlines by
making that idiotic wannabe-coup. The sh*t that previously USA did silently pretending
whitegloved "shining beacon", Trump exposed.
Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014? I doubt. To me it
seemes more like T.T. accelerated things and "threw it all on the table" making Venezuela
"hit the rock bottom". Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world, while USA would
probably not be in position to tighten its grip - it already burned all the reserves and in
so clumsy way, that Bolton and Co became a laughing stock. If anything, it exposed that while
most gov't there would be paying lip service to USA, none would go with something material.
France invaded with USA Libya, Germany invaded with USA Serbia, but none enlisted to invade
Venezuela with USA.
> In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Brazil was indeed a huge blow into the BRICS dream. But i see it more of that indirect,
covert "soft power" that USA secret services prepared and rushed to implement before
Trump.
> 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
Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
From multipolar view circa 2010, would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or
Iran, whether USD or EUR would be "reserve currency"?
After Alexander of Macedonia died his empire split to pieces, and some of those pieces
soon started warring. Did this enhance Greek hegemony or reduced it?
When COMECOM and Warsaw Pact disbanded did it enhanced Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe
or reduced it? But it slashed exports of those lands, Bulgaria is not more agriculture
super-power it used to be, "Ikarus" bus is still often meet in Moscow street but in the
"remnants of old times still able to run" kind, Poland is no more producing ocean-grade
ships. So, was it enhancing USSR share of world economy then?
Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp? That said, similarly
Russia was forced towards China in 2013-2014 by Western lunacy, so i would not say it was
Trump's novelty to push EU eastwards.
EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls for
EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading
Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
> Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty hard.
And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you? EU is the power, that took
part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves
markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing?
Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
> Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means
slowing down multipolarity
Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
Wasn't Turkey for decades be knockign into closed EU membership doors?
Wasn't Turkey send their people into Germany to intertwine and cross-influence?
Turkey as part of multipolarity? Maybe. But exactly because it was prohibited from what
they see their place in global western world. However i am not very sure that would West
offer "larger piece" to Turkey in their crippling hegemony, turkey would not turn back yet
again. Goog thing, it would be hard to do as few believe western promises today, but again,
didn't Trump (but other western politicians too, and including many pre-Trump) invested into
making West glaringly "not agreement-capable" in but everyone's view?
Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump could smash Kurds and make amends with Erdo.
Instead Trump is breaking pots with both. Neither Kurds not Turks no trust "the shining
beacon".
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates
than before
Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
> the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down
multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar
That may be what some faction of Team Trump counting upon. But i have reservations.
Uni-polarity is not about economic growth. It is about trading on One True Market, hegemon's
one.
And when everything goes down, another factors start to weigh in. Like elasticity of demand
and replacement with cheaper substitutes. Like, if i need a tooling for my house, i would
perhaps want to purchase Japanese Makita or German Bosh. Those are famous brands with decades
of well earned reputation. But if i only can salivate on them, then perhaps i can go with
some cheaper Chinese knock-off? Or perhaps to blow the dust from my grandpa's old tool and
purchase nothing at all? If i can buy genuine American Levi's it is a fad, but if i can, then
perhaps i will make it in Turkey-made or China-made or Philipinnes-made or even Syria-made
jeans? You know, their cut is not that fitting as European or American, but perhaps we can
deal with it for the price? If in Russia i can no more buy Czech or German beer as before
2014, then perhaps i can sooth myself with apple cidre from semi-eastern Altai region of
Russia? And then, will my gov't still had the same need for USD for those adjusted trade
transactions, as it used to?
The most dangerous bit of theater involving sanctions initiated by the Trump administration
continues to focus on Iran. Last week, the White House elevated its extreme pressure on the
Iranians by engaging in a completely irrational sanctioning of Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif. The sanctions will have no effect whatsoever and they completely
contradict Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he is seeking diplomacy to resolving the
conflict with Iran. One doesn't accomplish that by sanctioning the opposition's Foreign
Minister. Also, the Iranians have received the message loud and clear that the threats coming
from Washington have nothing to do with nuclear programs. The White House began its sanctions
regime over a year ago when it withdrew from the JCPOA and they have been steadily increasing
since that time even though Iran has continued to be fully compliant with the agreement.
Recently, the US took the unprecedented step of sanctioning the entire Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps, which is part of the nation's military.
American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made clear that the sanctions on Iran are
intended to cause real pain, which, in fact, they have succeeded in doing. Pompeo and his
accomplice in crime National Security Advisor John Bolton believe that enough pressure will
motivate the starving people to rise up in the streets and overthrow the government, an
unlikely prospect as the American hostility has in fact increased popular support for the
regime.
To be sure, ordinary people in Iran have found that they cannot obtain medicine and some
types of food are in short supply but they are not about to rebel. The sanctioning in May of
Iranian oil exports has only been partially effective but it has made the economy shrink, with
workers losing jobs. The sanctions have also led to tit-for-tat seizures of oil and gas
tankers, starting with the British interception of a ship carrying Iranian oil to Syria in
early July.
Another bizarre escalation in sanctions that has taken place lately relates to the Skripal
case in Britain. On August 2 nd , Donald Trump
signed an executive order imposing a package of new sanctions against Moscow over the
alleged poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in March
2018. The order "prohibit[s] any United States bank from making any loan or providing any
credit except for loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural
commodities or products." The ban also includes "the extension of any loan or financial or
technical assistance by international financial institutions," meaning that international
lenders will also be punished if they fail to follow Washington's lead.
The sanctions were imposed under the authority provided by the US
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act adopted in 1991, which
imposes penalties for use of chemical weapons. Novichok, which was reportedly used on the
Skripals, is a chemical weapon developed in the labs of the Soviet Union, though a number of
states are believed to currently have supplies of the agent in their arsenals. Russia can
appeal the sanctions with 90 days by providing "reliable assurance" that it will not again use
chemical weapons.
Russia has strenuously denied any role in the attack on the Skripals and the evidence that
has so far been produced to substantiate the Kremlin's involvement has been less than
convincing. An initial package of US-imposed sanctions against Russia that includes the export
of sensitive technologies and some financial services was implemented in August 2018.
Venezuela is also under the sanctions gun and is a perfect example how sanctions can
escalate into something more punitive, leading incrementally to an actual state of war. Last
week Washington expanded its sanctions regime, which is already causing starvation in parts of
Venezuela, to include what amounts to a complete
economic embargo directed against the Maduro regime that is being enforced by a naval
blockade.
The Venezuelan government
announced last Wednesday that the United States Navy had seized a cargo ship bound for
Venezuela while it was transiting the Panama Canal. According to a government spokesman, the
ship's
cargo was soy cakes intended for the production of food. As one of Washington's raisons
d'etre for imposing sanctions on Caracas was that government incompetence was starving the
Venezuelan people, the move to aggravate that starvation would appear to be somewhat capricious
and revealing of the fact that the White House could care less about what happens to the
Venezuelan civilians who are caught up in the conflict.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez
condemned the move as "serious aggression," and accused the Trump Administration of trying
to impede Venezuela's basic right to import food to feed its people.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the sanctions regimes that the United States is
imposing is that they are global. When Washington puts someone on its sanctions list, other
countries that do not comply with the demands being made are also subject to punishment,
referred to as secondary sanctions. The sanctions on Iran's oil exports, for example, are being
globally enforced with some few exceptions, and any country that buys Iranian oil will be
punished by being denied access to the US financial and banking system. That is a serious
penalty as most international trade and business transactions go through the dollar denominated
SWIFT banking network.
Finally, nothing illustrates the absurdity of the sanctions mania as a recent report that
President Trump had
sent his official hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to Stockholm to obtain freedom for an
American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten into a fight with some
local boys. The Trumpster did not actually know the lad, but he was vouched for by the likes of
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the president.
The negotiator was instructed to tell Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be
"negative consequences." Who can doubt that the consequences would undoubtedly have included
sanctions?
It has reached the point where the only country that likes the United States is Israel,
which is locked into a similar cycle of incessant aggression. To be sure Donald Trump's
rhetoric is part of the problem, but the indiscriminate, illegal and immoral use of sanctions,
which punish whole nations for the presumed sins of those nations' leaders, is a major
contributing factor. And the real irony is that even though sanctions cause pain, they are
ineffective. Cuba has been under sanctions, technically and embargo, since 1960 and its ruling
regime has not collapsed, and there is no chance that Venezuela, Iran or Russia's government
will go away at any time soon either. In fact, real change would be more likely if Washington
were to sit down at a negotiating table with countries that it considers enemies and work to
find solutions to common concerns. But that is not likely to happen with the current White
House line-up, and equally distant with a Democratic Party obsessed with the "Russian threat"
and other fables employed to explain its own failings.
Trailer Trash is exactly right about brittle supply chains. To "maximize Shareholder value"
(the Prime Directive from Wall Street), corporations are maximizing (not optimizing)
efficiency, at the expense of long-term priorities.
Summer Diaz is sorta right about what I might describe as US cultural/political obesity,
but I don't look forward to living here after the shit hits the fan. There are lotsa crazy
bastards with guns. We'll see real race war, starvation, all 4 Horsemen.
Re questions about Israel's fate in Marandi's scenario: I think it's smart that he/they
don't talk about retaliation against Israel. Everybody knows that Iran has the ability to
really hurt Israel (sans Nukes, they probably can't obliterate it); but this threat is much
better left unsaid, just hanging in the air. Threatening Israel would be bad PR, decreasing
chances that EU, Russia, & China can talk the US back from the brink of WWIII. And making
sure Israel knows they're in danger - without bragging about it - gets (non-crazy) Zionists
in USA to help prevent all-out war!
It's OK for Iran to talk about the threat to KSA, UAE, etc, because everybody hates them
anyway, and cutting off the world's energy supply is their Doomsday Bomb. They need to remind
the world that if the US attacks Iran, everybody loses.
Three main antagonists have aimed at post-revolution Iran: The Outlaw US Empire, Occupied
Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, the latter being the most recent and vulnerable, while the first
two have already waged varying degrees of war with the Empire's Economic War having existed
for 40+ years. The Levant's former Colonial powers--Turkey, France, UK--are feeble, and in
Turkey's case is allied with Iran while being spurned by NATO and EU. Lurking in the
background are Russia and China's designs for Eurasian Integration which only the Outlaw US
Empire seeks to prevent as such integration benefits Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, France
and UK. Thus the only entity that might benefit from non-hybrid war with Iran is the Outlaw
US Empire--Occupied Palestine's interests actually lie with becoming part of an Integrated
Eurasia not in trying to impede it. And the same goes for the other nations occupying the
Arabian Peninsula--but they all need to come to their senses by deeply examining their actual
long term interests as Qatar seems to have done in its rapprochement with Iran.
But, just how would a non-hybrid conflict with Iran benefit the Outlaw US Empire if it
consumes its regional allies? Would it bring more riches or create greater debt atop the
human cost? Most analysts have pointed to the Empire's vulnerability upon the trashing of the
current global economic structure. Indeed, the only visible benefit might accrue from slowing
Eurasian Integration. Then there's the highly negative result to the Empire's global
credibility which is already scrapping rock bottom and the likely end of Dollar Hegemony and
the Free Lunch it's lived on for the past 70+ years. But what about the fulfillment of the
Christian Rapture Myth? Sorry, but there should be no need to answer that fantastical,
magical, thinking. Not a very good balance sheet is it as liabilities seem to vastly outweigh
assets. Unfortunately, such logic is ignored by ideologues drunk on magical thinking. And
these results don't take into consideration an escalation into global nuclear conflict that's
in nobody's interest.
But as noted, Trump's up a tree and keeps climbing higher onto ever thinner, more
precarious branches. Iran offered him a chance to climb down if he removes illegal sanctions
and returns to JCPOA, which Pompeo promptly replied to with a lie that Iran would negotiate
on its ballistic missiles, thus giving the overall goal away.
So, Trump can't/won't climb down and non-hybrid conflict would do great damage to Outlaw
US Empire interests, which is where we were at July's beginning.
Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate
counterstrike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Which will be the green light for an even more violent & disproportionate counterstrike
on Iran. Make no mistake - there are plenty of gung-ho Washington & Tel Aviv power
brokers who want to trash Iran. And they will do it, given the chance. The above scenario is
precisely what the war gods are hoping for.
I don't know about that. The US and Israel would really be opening up a can of worms. Any
over reaction by the USA and Israel gives Russia, India, and China a precedent to follow.
China might it easy to settle their difficulties with Taiwan. Kiev might go up in a mushroom
cloud. The USA isn't the only country in the world with problems. If they don't play by the
rules it just leads to more rule breakers.
An Alternate Scenario
There is a saying in Persian language called "Namad Maali" translates as "feltman massag", it
means slow killing.
This proverb is very often used in contemporary Persian language but most of the people do
not know the actual origin of the proverb.
There is an interesting legend behind it. Holagu Khan, a Mongol ruler, the grandson of
Chengiz Khan conquered Baghdad on year 1258, and captured the Caliph Al-Mo'tasam, the last
Caliph of Abbasid dynasty. Holagu decided to execute the Caliph and finish the 500 years
Muslim caliphate.
Many statesmen begged him to hold on. They told him that the caliph is legitimate successor
of prophet Mohammad. Caliphate is the pillar of the world, if you remove this pillar there
will be sun eclipse, thunder storm and total darkness. Holagu, with his shamanistic believes
fearing sky revenge was yielding, but he consulted his prime minister a Persian mullah, Nasir
al-Din Tusi. Nasir told him do not worry, these are total nonsense, all of our great Shai
twelve imams were direct descendants of prophet Mohammad, they were inherently innocent,
while Abbasid are not direct descendants of prophet. See that our imams, eleven out of
twelve, were martyred, there was no sun eclipse, no thunder storm, no darkness of the
world.
Holagu was bold enough to carry out the execution. Other statesmen brought forward a group of
astrologists who searched through their horoscopes and studied signs of stars and concluded
that all the signs are catastrophic, if a drop of caliph's blood drops on earth, there will
be a devastating thunder storm, rain of bloods pours down from sky and end of world ...
Holagu consulted Nasi again. Nasir being a great humorist, told him not worry, we can devise
a pretty easy solution for your peace of mind, send the caliph to hot bath of feltman
workshop, order to be wrapped in felt, they will give him a hot water bath with soap, they
will roll him slowly over and over, as they are crafting a felt, his life will be ended
peacefully in massage, without a drop of blood, meanwhile I will assign one of my intelligent
apprentice who is familiar with sky ways ( Nasir was a great mathematician and Astronomer, he
founded a famous observatory, he was inventor of trigonometry), to sit on the roof top of the
feltman workshop, he will monitor any changes on sky if there is a minor change, he will
signal to the feltman to release the caliph.
President Vladimir Khan has been giving warnings to Ayatollah do not burn JCPOA, do not close
Strait of Hurmoz. Ayatollah is telling him do not worry we are giving a feltman massage. Just
tell Xi khan do not lean his back against the wall street pillar, clean up your hands from
future fund casino, the pillars are collapsing slowly.
the US and its allies are bluffing. don't get caught up in wars and rumors of it. the only
way it was going to happen was if syria and iraq fell and both of them didn't.
when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy.
@C I eh? #14
I don't see China as the same situation as Russia.
The Russians who have largely supported Putin despite economic ill-effects from sanctions
are, at best, 1 generation removed from 1991-1996 post-Soviet collapse privation. They
remember the bad times and how to get through them.
The mainland Chinese today are 2 generation removed from the famines in the 50s and 60s, and
furthermore there is a largely generational break due to the Cultural Revolution.
I don't see China collapsing, but I also don't see the mainstream population taking a
oil-starvation induced economic collapse well at all, because the deal is social repression
if the economy and standards of living continue to improve.
The difference is French cheese and EU fruits and vegetables - luxury goods vs. oil = energy
= everything.
There seems to be misconception about Kuwait, in particular.
Kuwaitis are fed up with the Saudis and are more Iranophile than anything. They see who is
a true regional power.
Recently, I happen to be invited to a diplomatic function, welcoming a new Kuwaiti
ambassador (Not in US). There were several businessmen associates of the new ambassador at
that function. In an impromptu conversation, they professed their love for anything Iranian
or Persian, from culture and history to food and the people, and their disdain for the Saudis
and their ruling family.
In fact, one of them, much to my shock, uttered the circulating rumor that the ruling
family in SA are actually Jews. He said everyone in the region knows about this open secret
but afraid to talk about. That was a revelation for me coming from a Kuwaiti since I never
did pay attention to those rumors.
I think in the event of a regional conflict, Kuwait will be spared by Iran. What would
happen to the ruling family will be another story.
thanks Seyed Mohammad Marandi.. i agree with your headline...
the usa is not agreement friendly.. everything is on their terms only... they rip up
contracts when a new president doesn't like it, and make endless demands of others under
threat, just like bullies do. they sanction countries and don't mind killing, starving and
subjecting people in faraway lands to their ongoing and desperate means of domination..
nothing about the usa is friendly... they spend all their money on the military not just
because it works so well for wall st and the corporations but because they think they can
continue to bully everyone and anyone indefinitely.. they get support from the obvious
suspects and all the other colonies of the usa - europe, canada and etc - turn a type of
blind eye to it all, fearful they might be next if they step out of line.. thus, all these
chattel countries fail in line with the usa regime sanctions...
basically, the prognosis isn't good.. none of the colonies are capable of speaking up to
the usa regime, largely because they lack strong leadership and independence of thought in
all this... we continue to slip towards ww3 and at present all the observing countries sit on
their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop.. that is where we are at present with regard
the ramp up to war on iran...
The Gulf states know they would be in the front lines in any conflict, Saudi and UAE
infrastructure destruction would mean Kings, Princes and Emir's scurrying from their
destroyed countries because of their inability to sell oil and feed their people, as one
Iranian General said.. the US bases in the region are not threats, "they are targets". Its
true Iran has an army of 500,000, they also have millions of military aged men who would form
militias and have the reputation of taking their shrouds with them into battle.
I think a major miscalculation by Trump, initiating this kind of scenario is unlikely, those
other whack jobs Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are a cause for concern, just hear this nutcase
Lindsey Graham threatening the Europeans....
"The United States should sanction "to the ground" European countries that continue to trade
with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America's pressure campaign against
the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
"I will tell the Europeans, 'If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you
won't use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'" Graham said".
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/16/601067/US-Graham-Trump-Iran-JCPOA-EU-sanction-to-ground
Punitive sanctions against nations with a powerful military establishment have an incredibly
poor track record. Germany after WWI. Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. And one might add Russia
today. The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war.
But, of course, military planners in the U.S. and Israel have already picked out the
targets for nuclear strikes during the very first wave of attacks on Iran. It will be nuclear
first, ask questions later. Heil Trump has already said he will use nuclear weapons:
"obliterate". But will even that work? I doubt it. Iran must expect nuclear attacks in the
first wave. Yes, their urban populations will be destroyed, but their military? I doubt
it.
The folks who now are called Iranian once fought the most militaristic society ever - the
Spartans. There is likely a memory of that conflict still, and the lessons learned. They face
a military that no longer remembers Vietnam or its lessons. Sanctions are an act of war, not
military war but war against another who have been made into enemies nonetheless. Be mightily
careful who you make your enemy, one sage reminds that you become like them. Look at those
the U.S. has made enemy: Hitler and National Socialism; Mussolini and Fascism; Stalin and
State Authoritarianism; Franco and Military Repression; and the list continues substantially,
and then look at the U.S. in a distortion free mirror and what does one see?
Taking into consideration the novel Rand Paul intervention, the likely way forward is this,
and I'm sure it is what Putin (the master negotiator) has in mind: Trump blundered badly by
throwing out the JCPOA, but he needs a way out that allows him to save face and even turn it
into a partial "win". On the world stage (ie. for the public) it needs to look like Trump
accedes to reinstate the JCPOA IN EXCHANGE for Iran withdrawing from Syria! This will not
only save the nuclear deal, thereby reducing tensions, but it will force Israel to back down
and shut up. Israel can't complain and Trump can sell it as an achievement of his, "without
having to go to war". The US, of course will have to give Iran, Syria and Russia something in
exchange: Iran and Russia ultimately bolstered their forces in Syria in order to save Assad.
All things considered, Assad has won the war, so the reason for the bolstered Iranian and
Russian presence no longer applies. What the US must agree to is to suspend its efforts to
overthrow Assad (which Trump has been trying to do via the withdrawal of US troops in
northern Syria), thereby returning the country to the status quo ante. The wild card in all
of this, however, is Turkey's presence in Syria. Perhaps China can lend a helping hand on
that issue?
@35 "when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy."
I agree with that comment, though I will add that for this Administration "looking busy"
has a Keystone Cops look about it.
I mean, let's be real here: Norman Schwarzkopf did not make a single move against Iraq
until he had well over 500,000 GI's at his command, and Tommy Franks was not willing to
restart the Crash Boom Bang until he had built up his army to just shy of 500,000
soldiers.
And Iraq then was nowhere near as formidable as Iran is now.
Where are the troop buildups? Where is the CENTCOM army?
Nowhere. And no sign of it happening.
There is a real possibility that Bolton might get his way and start his dinky little war,
only to find that the USA loses a great big war before he even manages to get out of bed.
CENTCOM is not ready for war, nowhere close to it, and for that reason alone Iran is
correct to tell the USA that if Trump launches a "limited strike" then their response will be
"it's on, baby".
@ William Herschel 61. If the U.S. or anyone else uses any type of Nuclear weapons against
Iran, a declared ally of Russia, it will result in an immediate and full scale Nuclear
retaliation. This is a recent statement made by Vladimir Putin. Pompeo, Bolton et all are
well aware of this. The U.S. might talk of using tactical nukes but despite their Hubris,
even the most pro war in the Pentagon know what the results of that type of planned
anihilation will have on the U.S. mainland. People like Lindsey Graham are merely empty
vessels making a lot of noise.
Why would Iran allow any Western nation to save face through negotiations or
otherwise?
Khamenei yesterday tweeted several statements that were later posted to his website:
"At this meeting, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that Western
governments' arrogant behavior is the main obstacle in establishing ties and maintained:
Western governments' major vice is their arrogance. If they face a weak government, their
arrogance will be effective. But if that country knows the truth about them and resists, the
Western governments will be defeated.
"Referring to problems rising between Iran and the European partners of the JCPOA,
Ayatollah Khamenei said: Now, in the matters between us and the Europeans, the problems
persist, because of their arrogance.
"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution highlighted Iran's commitment to the JCPOA -- also
known as the Iran Deal -- and criticized European dignitaries of the deal for breaching it,
saying: As stated by our Foreign Minister, who works hard, Europe has had eleven commitments,
none of which it has met. The Foreign Minister, despite his diplomatic considerations, is
clearly stating that. But what did we do? We acted based on our commitments, and even beyond
that.
"Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran continued to stay within the JCPOA despite the
fact that the EU partners of the JCPOA as well as the British government violated the
international plan of action and yet demanded Iran to stay with its promises: Now that we
have started to reduce our commitments, they step forward. They are very insolent, and they
have not abided by their eleven commitments. We have just started to reduce some of our
commitments, and this process will surely continue."
The hypothetical suggestion Zarif made in his interview with NBC News was just
that--hypothetical--as it had to spell out again for the
apparently illiterate, deaf or both SoS Pompeo and BigLie Media presstitutes.
In his arrogance, Trump climbed up the tree he's now stuck within; and as I've pointed out
again and again, Iran isn't going to help him in his climb down--they'll be no face saving
for the arrogant Western nations. I mean, how clear can the Iranians make that?! They quite
well understand the very real interests at stake I put forth in my comment @32. And the Turks
on their own have upped the stakes with Erdogan
assuring :
"that his country is prepared to leave NATO during a meeting with Russian Deputy Vladimir
Zhirinovsky.
"'I met twice with Turkish President Recep Erdogan and he told me personally that Turkey
was willing to withdraw from NATO,' Zhirinovsky wrote."
Trump seems desperate for a way to climb down from his tree. Controversial Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul apparently volunteered his services as an emissary
to Iran , which Trump okayed but Paul's office is being mum about. As noted, Iran isn't
going to talk unless tangible, visible concessions are made prior to any talks
occurring--concessions Zarif and Rouhani have already stated as the minimum required: Ending
all illegal sanctions and return to JCPOA.
Iran just announced that they would be open to talk about ballistic missiles when US stops
selling arms in the Middle East.
You have to hand it to the Iranians. In the one-up-manship game, they are a formidable
opponent. Obviously, there is less than zero chance that would ever happen, but they are
super smart in driving the message of US arrogance home. I am happy to see they don't take
any shit from the Empire.
Money, Money, Money,... Old Money, Factories, Russian Mercheant, German Industrialist,
American Slave owner... Nord Deutscheland, Bremen, was heavily Communist... Family would
understand the power of Communist Equality and Serfdom.
An old Soviet General said the EU is like the old Soviets , the leaders were not
elected, they were appointed by others mostly their friends and the EU process is the same,
fat cats appoint other fat cats instead of direct elections.
"... "Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics. A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again? Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions? ..."
"... "Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far. But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United States. ..."
"... "Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with everyone, including Russia. ..."
"... "They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits. Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros. That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end." ..."
"... That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the US. ..."
"... Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism. ..."
"... Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys cultural freedom. ..."
"... Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that. ..."
"... In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect : "the market does not and cannot take care of itself". ..."
"... Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market. ..."
"... For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose. ..."
"... What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation, for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore. ..."
"... "If you try to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with machines." ..."
"... More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own failures, nor because of alien enemies. ..."
In case there are others aside from myself interested in the G-20 outcomes, here are a few
links to what IMO's important. Go here to get the links to the
three main documents G-20 produced: "G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration," "Osaka declaration on
digital economy," and "G20 Osaka leaders' statement on preventing exploitation of the
internet for terrorism and violent extremism conductive to terrorism (VECT)." Pepe
Escobar's recap . Transcript of Putin's post G20 news
conference.
I hoped when I added the presser link to the Putin interview thread and hinted there
were connections between them that another line of analysis would develop, but it seems
participants were way to immersed/invested in the liberalism debate to bother.
From the press conference, I'd like to point-out one of the Q&As related to the
illegal sanctions regime, economic development and how they interact with Trump's 2016
Campaign Pledges as we begin the 2020 election cycle:
"Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics.
A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions
against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that
no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again?
Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions?
"Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United
States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual
understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far.
But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal
situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the
page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United
States.
"I told you that we reasserted our wish to support the business community's proposal
regarding tools for the support of business initiatives. But it shows that the incumbent
Administration has intentions to somehow continue with this abnormal situation. I spoke
about our trade with the United States and with some other partners. Obviously, $25
billion in trade does not meet our interests and does not reflect our potential.
"That is why I have no idea if they will do anything or not. At any rate, one thing is
sure – we are not going to ask for anything. No means no. And if there is interest,
we will respond in kind and will do everything we can to turn the situation around.
"Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg
Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means
goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that
interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world
economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While
large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did
their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the
standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real
incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with
everyone, including Russia.
"They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made
calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits.
Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros.
That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the
United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end."
It appears that Trump needs to end his Trade and Sanctions Wars (although all the
illegal sanctions aren't his doing) in order to bolster his reelection chances. The
questions are, Will the sanction hawks like Mnuchin try to impede such a policy change
since it seems to be required for domestic politics and How will D-Party candidates treat
the issue, particularly as several are hooked on Russiagate Koolaid?
And do please note the question about the interview at the end, Putin's answer and how
he put in within the context of the G20!
Great quote of Putin by karlof1 @39. That final sentence says much, though:
"I hope that sanity will prevail in the end"
That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin
pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the
US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's
power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the
US.
A minor correction to dh-mtl @59 where it was claimed "[The globalists] lost power from
the mid-1930s to 1980."
The globalists were never actually out of power in the US. Instead they were confronted
with a massive upsurge in radical organized labor that threatened to remove them from
power. The globalists had to make very significant concessions to buy time for that labor
uprising to subside. That happened to take almost half a century, but throughout that
period the globalists retained power, though in a somewhat weakened form. They are back at
full strength now
'But to say any one nation "produced" the current global market economic system is a bit
like saying Yahweh created all the heavens and the earth in 6 days.'
I never suggested that 'one nation' produced this global system.
What I was suggesting is that perhaps the financial elites who benefit from, as you
describe it, a 'financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may
call home', and who controlled Reagan and Clinton and W and Obama, Blair and Cameron and
Macron and Merkel and Aznar in Spain, etc., etc., and hundreds of MEPs in the European
parliament, and who created the U.S. Deep State, control virtually all of western
main-stream media, and who place their people in control of institutions such as the World
Bank, and IMF, and UN and WTO and BIS, and who decide the fate of the world every year at
Davos and the Bilderberg conference, might have had something the do with creating the laws
and treaties that created that system.
This sounds like a pretty effective political system to me, though definitely not
democratic.
Carter agreed to appoint Volker in order to save the bondholders by destroying the
domestic economy with interest rates over 20% which is what actually cost him the 1980
election. In 1978, McNamara was sent off to the World Bank to work in tandem with IMF to
begin the imposition of the euphemized Structural Adjustment Programs--the globalized
version of Neoliberalism.
'the Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers do not offer an effective solution to problem of
wealth inequality which is your complaint'.
Wealth inequality is not my complaint. My point is that 'dictatorship', whether it be in
the hands of 'wealthy global elites', military or other, cannot achieve acceptable outcomes
for a large, complex, modern society, and that excessive wealth inequality is a sure
indicator of dictatorship.
The Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers may not have an effective solution. But they are
convinced that what has been going on in their societies over the past 30 plus years has
definitely not worked for them either. My analysis is that they are trying to return to the
conditions in which the outcomes were much better for them.
My own conviction is that acceptable outcomes for a society can only be achieved when
the political leaders are working on behalf of the society as a whole, rather than for a
narrow privileged group, and especially a group that has little or no allegiance to the
nation-state, whose boundaries define the society.
When the political leaders are truly working on behalf of the population as a whole,
there is a wide variety of policy options that can work. Trial and error over time will
ensure that the policy options that are most appropriate for a particular society and its
circumstances will eventually emerge.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation
enjoys cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with
worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing
and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect
: "the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing
the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of
economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation,
for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore.
It's important to highlight that the tendency of the profit rate to fall doesn't
necessarily means a company is losing money, but just that the profit rate is secularly
decreasing. Since it's a tendency, it also doesn't mean this fall happens linearly: capital
still operates in cycles. However, over the long term, profit rates will fall, no matter
what.
The biggest reason Trump can't bring back home these manufacturing jobs is because they
have been lost in large part to the success of 'efficiency' in the US Over the past
three-and-a-half decades, manufacturers have shed more than seven million jobs while
producing more stuff than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported in The
Manufacturing Footprint and the Importance of U.S. Manufacturing Jobs that
"If you try
to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over
and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily
technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by
machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you
discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with
machines."
More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own
failures, nor because of alien enemies.
When we speak of unadulterated capitalism and capital, we start with the most basic
capital we have, our hands. If I go and LABOUR by planting a tree and caring for it, the
fruit I consider mine. I might give those away at choice, or exchange them for something
else of value. That something eventually became known as money, a commonly recognised unit,
it's strength being that it could not be replicated, and its worth accepted in a wider
market by others. The fruit of a persons labour was transmitted to descendants and family
in tradition, in a society that respected that tradition. The whole process is very very
personal, including where extended business starts appearing.
Now, you want me to both accept taxation, where to not compete is a losing proposition,
and to accept that finance is able to conjure up replica money using that taxation as
basis, with which I have to compete with own earnings that are steadily purposefully
diluted - I take it very very very personally. What are you going to offer me, subsidy from
the pooled value now under your control ? Because it is a social and "fair" management of
reality ? Communism and socialism do not work, they remove the most natural good incentives
a person can have to actually go out and achieve anything, they dull what are otherwise
lively common understandings, they diminish societies that otherwise have open appreciation
for the effort of others. They try to own those, and they end up as dictatorships to try to
impose an own ideological dream. The same can be said of crony capitalism, which approaches
fascism.
That is why I subscribe to minarchic classical liberal notions of organisation, with
hard money and transparency of finance, as compromise. You know Iran and Saudi are gold
backed, don't you. You can figure out from that part of what is going on, maybe.
See better discussion at
platts.com "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers
into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy
between January 2015 and the start of August 2016." So $2 price at Henry Hub should rise to at least $4 for companies to stay in business.
Notable quotes:
"... Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is produced domestically, the rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%. ..."
"... The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage. ..."
"... Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017. ..."
"... s mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines. This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources. ..."
"... This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe. ..."
"... Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG, a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security. ..."
"... The European countries do not appear to be dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" ..."
"... The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. ..."
One of the most important energy battles
of the future will be fought in the field of liquid natural gas (LNG). Suggested as one of the main solutions to
pollution , LNG offers the possibility
of still managing to meet a country's industrial needs while ameliorating environmental concerns caused by other energy sources.
At the same time, a little like the US dollar, LNG is becoming a tool Washington intends to use against Moscow at the expense of
Washington's European allies.
To understand the rise of LNG in global strategies, it is wise to look at a
graph (page 7)
produced by the International Gas Union (IGU) where the following four key indicators are highlighted: global regasification capacities;
total volumes of LNG exchanged; exporting countries; and importing countries.
From 1990 to today,
the world has grown from 220 million tons per annum (MTPA) to around 850 MTPA of regasification capacity. The volume of trade
increased from 20-30 MTPA to around 300 MTPA. Likewise, the number of LNG-importing countries has increased from just over a dozen
to almost 40 over the course of 15 years, while the number of producers has remained almost unchanged, except for a few exceptions
like the US entering the LNG market in 2016.
There are two methods used to transport gas.
The first is through pipelines, which reduce costs and facilitate interconnection between countries, an important example of
this being seen in Europe's importation of gas. The four main pipelines for Europe come from four distinct geographical regions:
the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and Russia.
The second method of transporting gas is by sea in the form of LNG, which in the short term is more expensive, complex and
difficult to implement on a large scale. Gas transported by sea is processed to be cooled so as to reduce its volume, and then
liquified again to allow storage and transport by ship. This process adds 20% to costs when compared to gas transported through
pipelines.
Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is
produced domestically, the
rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain
led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%.
The construction of infrastructure to accommodate LNG ships is ongoing in Europe, and some European countries already have a limited
capacity to accommodate LNG and direct it to the national and European network or act as an energy hub to ship LNG to other ports
using smaller ships.
"All of Europe's LNG terminals are import facilities, with the exception of (non-EU) Norway and Russia which export LNG. There
are currently 28 large-scale LNG import terminals in Europe (including non-EU Turkey). There are also 8 small-scale LNG facilities
in Europe (in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Gibraltar). Of the 28 large-scale LNG import terminals, 24 are in EU countries
(and therefore subject to EU regulation) and 4 are in Turkey, 23 are land-based import terminals, and 4 are floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), and the one import facility in Malta comprises a Floating Storage Unit (FSU) and onshore regasification
facilities."
The countries currently most involved in the export of LNG are Qatar (24.9%), Australia (21.7%), Malaysia (7.7%), the US (6.7%),
Nigeria (6.5%) and Russia (6%).
Europe is one of the main markets for gas, given its strong demand for clean energy for domestic and industrial needs. For this
reason, Germany has for years been engaged in the Nord Stream 2 project, which aims to double the transport capacity of gas from
Russia to Germany. Currently the flow of the Nord Stream is 55 billion cubic meters of gas. With the new Nord Stream 2, the capacity
will double to 110 billion cubic meters per year.
The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation
to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies
like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction
of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to
derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage.
Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore
in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in
perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017.
ENI's discovery has generated important planning for the future of LNG in Europe and in Italy.
Problems have arisen ever since Donald Trump sought to oblige Europeans to
purchase LNG from the US in
order to reduce the trade deficit and benefit US companies at the expense of other gas-exporting countries like Algeria, Russia and
Norway. As mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines.
This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne
gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into
its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources.
This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports
to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant
decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe.
But Europe finds itself in a decidedly uncomfortable situation that cannot be easily resolved. The anti-Russia hysteria drummed
up by the Euro-Atlantic globalist establishment aides Donald Trump's efforts to economically squeeze as much as possible out of European
allies, hurting European citizens in the process who will have to pay more for American LNG, which costs about a fifth more than
gas from Russian, Norwegian or Algerian sources.
Projects to build offshore regasifiers in Europe appear to have begun and seem unlikely to be affected by future political vagaries,
given the investment committed and planning times involved:
"There are currently in the region of 22 large-scale LNG import terminals considered as planned in Europe, except for the planned
terminals in Ukraine (Odessa FSRU LNG), Russia (Kaliningrad LNG), Albania (Eagle LNG) – Albania being a candidate for EU membership
– and Turkey (FSRU Iskenderun and FSRU Gulf of Saros).
Many ofthese planned terminals, including Greece (where one additional import terminal is planned – Alexandroupolis), Italy
(which is considering or planning two additional terminals – Porto Empedocle in Sicily and Gioia Tauro LNG in Calabria) , Poland
(FSRU Polish Baltic Sea Coast), Turkey (two FSRUs) and the UK (which is planning the Port Meridian FSRU LNG project and UK Trafigura
Teesside LNG). LNG import terminal for Albania (Eagle LNG), Croatia (Krk Island), Cyprus (Vassiliko FSRU), Estonia (Muuga (Tallinn)
LNG and Padalski LNG), Germany ( Brunsbüttel LNG), Ireland (Shannon LNG and Cork LNG), Latvia (Riga LNG), Romania (Constanta LNG),
Russia (Kaliningrad LNG) and Ukraine (Odessa).
Nine of the planned terminals are FSRUs: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the UK. "In
addition, there are numerous plans for expansion of existing terminals, including in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK."
Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share
of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not
surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG,
a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security.
The European countries do not appear to be
dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been
evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" This, however, is not the case with
all allies. Germany is not economically able to interrupt Nord Stream 2. And even though the project has many high-level sponsors,
including former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the project constantly seems to be on the verge of being stopped – at least in Washington's
delusions.
Even Eni's discovery of the gas field in Egypt has annoyed the US, which wants less competition (even when illegal, as in the
case of Huawei) and wants to be able to force its exports onto Europeans while maintaining the price of the LNG in dollars, thereby
further supporting the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in the same manner as the
petrodollar .
The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's
behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. The Europeans appear
prepared to set whatever course the US has charted them, one away from cheaper gas sources to the more expensive LNG supplied from
across the Atlantic. Given the investments already committed to receive this LNG, it seems unlikely that the course set for the Europeans
will be changed.
I live in Europe. I can honestly say that the people I know here prefer Russian gas. People are very ticked off about how the
US meddled in their gas supply and the structuring of the pipelines. Most feel that even if US LNG WAS competitive with Russian
gas price for now, that the US would in some way either increase prices or use it in some other way to control or manipulate the
EU. And sentiment towards USA tends toward resentment and distrust. That's not to say they are necessarily pro-Russia, but definitely
a wave of anti US is present.
US LNG pricing is based on Henry Hub which today is under $2.30/mmbtu.
Even adding in liquefaction and shipping costs, the price to the end user is extremely low.
Henry hub is projected to be sub $3 for DECADES!
Combine the low price with spot deliveries (pipe usually demands long term contracting commitments), and US LNG actually has
strong rationale for being accepted.
The statement above that US LNG cannot compete against Australia in Asia is preposterously false due to the VERY high buildout
costs of the Aussie LNG infrastructure.
Next year, Oz's first LNG IMPORT terminal at Port Kembla may well be supplied with US LNG.
The US has shown itself to be unreliable as a supplier of anything. Political posturing will always take precedence over any
international transaction.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S.
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to
project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence
events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as
staging areas or for logistical, communications and
intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in
large numbers by world powers and the existence of
bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none
of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
Whilst the left wants to go full throttle towards Wind and Solar, no one knows that the natural gas lobby is behind these sources
because both sources need a backup. While everyone talks "carbon footprint" they never discusses plant efficiency ( or
in the terms of engines brake specific fuel consumption and turbine specific fuel consumption ) in terms of thermal efficiency.
You know the boring stuff that plant operators stress over to make sure when your wife wakes up @ 3 in the morning to feed the
baby, the lights do go on, and they are creating that wattage in an cost affective manner. With that said, the king of thermal
efficiency i.e. burning a fuel to create electricity, is the Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power Plant. These plants combines a stationary
gas turbine buring natural gas to spin a generator and a boiler on the back side capture the waste heat to create steam to spin
a turbine to again add an input to the generator for a current state of the art of 61% efficiency . That means only 39%
going up the stack or for steam cooling to get your "Delta T" for the steam cycle to work. This 61% is vs maybe in the mid 40's
for a coal, oil plant or in the case of Nuclear just waste heat with nothing going out a stack. The greater wattage per fuel burned,
and the modularization of these Combined Cycle Plants aka have a series of 100mw turbines and bring them on line as needed, make
this a win-win IMHO for a massive refurbishing of our Utility base, with a host of benefits, before Gen 3 & Gen 4 Nuclear truly
take off again. These plants could be a great stop gap before Gen 3 & 4 are a reality. All the macinations towards wind and solar
and their disavantages aka being bird vegamatics, vistas being spoiled and huge swaths of land being used for panels make no sense
vs energy density of efficient plants. We are the Natural Gas King, lets not flare it anymore, and really, really leverage it
here, help allies, and use it for bringing bad behaving children of the world to the table ifyou will, if you want the candy,
behave....
Why do we have to treat other countries like we're the parent? We aren't. They are equal and fully functioning countries quite
capable of determining their own political and economic future...which may involve not trading or interacting with the U.S. Particularly
if we demand of them conditions we ourselves would never accede.
The Lithuanian FSRU "Independence" which was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014 to the port of Klaipeda drove
energy costs for heating through the roof and perhaps is one of the reasons the Prime Minister at the time only came in third
in the latest presidential elections. You can stay reasonably warm, eat or have money for medicine and other necessities. Pick
2 ONLY. Thank you USSA
Brainsick as Pompeo the US Pork without character.
As Long as Russia dlivery theier gas constantly and for a much better price then Us-Shale idiots, the ziocons only can lose.
We Europeans are not very impressed.
The biggest Capitalist economy on the planet needs to use mob tactics to push its over priced wares- seems 'long term' is not
part of their hit-and-run operation.
Now as for the article; apart from a few Eastern European Countries (The Ukraine, Poland etc.), I have seen no proof whatsoever,
that Europe is shifting to US LNG.
As for "As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?""; I am sorry,
but I think those days are over..... this can be seen in our Iranian stance, the 2 Russian pipelines - 1 being Nordstream II and
the other Turk-stream, increased trade with Russia, joining the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and so on and
so on......
Slowly but surely the anti-Russia propaganda is dying. You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some people
all of the time (libtards), but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Europeans (the citizens) will question why they
should pay 20-30% more for their natural gas just to please America. Politicians better have an answer or change of policy if
they want to be reelected.
"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."
One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint
Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch"
with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I
want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed.
I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he
pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran,
what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point
-- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as
Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to
sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran
has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to
economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against
its tormentors.
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both
Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched
under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an
oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the
international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and
London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea
here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one
of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes
almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case
with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that
suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in
power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well
established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial
Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that
they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be
annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane
reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason
he pulled backs so much bilge.
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to
the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian
response.
All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are
wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.
Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective
cobwebs further.
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed
advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be
believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the
salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons
in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American
imperialism.
We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the
modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the
decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their
moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos.
The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement
between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.
For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs
and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last
century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean
bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I
would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their
indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers
who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we
point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of
American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That
analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the
consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East
demonstrates.
A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:
"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to
be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to
our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of
individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of
the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth
using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of
navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water
in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be
entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the
straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is
something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians
have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no
subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and
financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house
of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of
derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is
estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or
$1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a
billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See
"World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight
Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
<
https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various
elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world
production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps
less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class
circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran.
That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself
admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the
whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf
Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for
possible confrontation with Iran.
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is
really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal
US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even
like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of
diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or
connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset
[NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and
sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other
countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US
Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would
face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken
down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would
be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for
Weakness'...
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used
but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton.
Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the
Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its
hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the
Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the
Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin
transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber
attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the
military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced
the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:
This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for
conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:
The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran
must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's
Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American
imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment
and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence
gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership
accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building
SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest
of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed
by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a
force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore
empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and
Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its
economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live
the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade
Andre Damon.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast
oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream.
Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but
militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by
nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to
react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more
mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon
and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it
remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be
followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So
world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar
and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and
human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also
WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are
determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its
image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger
and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian
Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled
son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian
nation'.
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would
have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would
have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into
the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so
easily take down one of our ships.
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only
practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they
where considering they where armed with guns.
Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete
similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of
long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area
defences...
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or
two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of
Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media
outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.
"... It is utterly bizarre to hear people who believe Trump is unfit to lead seem disappointed that he isn't taking us to war. ..."
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove" advisors? ..."
"... If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his 10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker. ..."
"... Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine - first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he hears on Fox News to start it all over again. ..."
"... "It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster." ..."
"... the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the Constitution. ..."
"... And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con. ..."
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of his
own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is
quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the first
place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian air space
(or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk"
advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove"
advisors?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine
- first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again.
But just because on this pass he happened to randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're
supposed to congratulate him for finally "becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is
the contortions his supporters put themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to
everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article is
crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President," is
a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used when
Trump bombed Syria for the first time.
He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their
restraint (on the contrary, they have created a crisis for no good reason and have brought us
to the brink of war as a result) so much as he's criticizing the media for its
warmongering.
The media is actually trying to bait the President into a unilateral act of war against
another country that hasn't attacked us and couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop
routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm Bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated
in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper
place would be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this time.
(And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and kill
and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would be a truly presidential act." ..."
...This Administration's handling of Iran, as compared to the last, is anything but stupid.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion we should be going to war, and you're pissed that
this President made the right decision at the right time. Nice try, because thinking the
way you are is stupid.
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of
his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump
is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the
first place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian
air space (or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future.
For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to
hitting pay dirt.
Well, this article vanquished my very recent admiration for Michael Brendan Dougherty,
acquired by way of Mr. Dreher.
"articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument ..."
That's like claiming Mrs O'Leary's cow that kicked over the lantern and burned Chicago
to the ground was articulating the finer points of preventing forest fires originated by
Smokey the Bear.
Do the writers here do a little physical stretching before contorting yourselves into
pretzel shapes trying to justify every lantern Trump kicks over into poles of dry hay as he
goes along?
Of course conservative Christians hate pulling back from imminent, and possibly nuclear
war. When haven't they in American history?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching
Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine -
first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again. But just because on this pass he happened to
randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're supposed to congratulate him for finally
"becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is the contortions his supporters put
themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article
is crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President,"
is a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used
when Trump bombed Syria for the first time. He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't
praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their restraint (on the contrary, they have created a
crisis for no good reason and have brought us to the brink of war as a result) so much as
he's criticizing the media for its warmongering. The media is actually trying to bait the
President into a unilateral act of war against another country that hasn't attacked us and
couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like
skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to
be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this
pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would
deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would
be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this
time. (And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and
kill and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
This type of article is the reason I read The American Conservative. Thank you for
addressing this important issue from a cautious and realistic perspective.
Although Donald Trump and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every issue, I
do prefer his restrained foreign policy instincts to the hawkish ones of Hillary
Clinton.
Goodness you people and your Nobel prize obsession. The last guy got one he didn't deserve
so I should get one too. Whether the decision was presidential or not is hinged on motive
in my view.
If it was an assessment that if our drone did in fly over US airspace, then it
represented a legitimate target for Iran - then certainly critical thinking as expressed
has some merit to sound management.
If the matter was decided on the messiness of conflict and calculating one's political
carreer, the level of sound management is simply not a factor.
THIS is what white supremacy looks like: Punish Iran because one day in the far off future
they may develop an atomic bomb but gift Israel $3 billion a year while it harbors hundreds
of nukes. Meanwhile, pat head choppers like Saudi Arabia on the head -- As long as they
buys billions in US weapons and force nations to use US dollars to buy oil.
Do you realize that Iran is an Aryan nation, which would make them white? Israel is a
Jewish nation, which most white supremacists hate. And Saudi Arabia is an Arab country,
which would not make it a white country.
So how in the world is this what white supremacy looks like?
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans
have reportedly already died as a result of this administration's relentless assault on
their economy; those human beings are no less dead than they would have been if the US had
killed them by dropping cluster bombs on Caracas. Yet these deaths have received virtually no
mainstream media coverage, and Americans, while they
strongly oppose attacking Iran militarily , have had very little to say about Trump's
attacks on the nation's economy. The economy which people use to feed their children, to care
for their elderly and their sick.
I'm titling this essay "Starvation Sanctions Are Worse Than Overt Warfare", and I mean it. I
am not saying that starvation sanctions are more destructive or deadly than overt military
force in and of themselves; what I am saying is that the overall effect is worse, because
there's no public accountability for them and because they deliberately target civilians.
If the US were to launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles into an Iranian suburb with the goal
of killing civilians, there'd be international outrage and the cohesion of the US-centralized
power alliance would take a major hit. Virtually everyone would recognize this as an
unforgivable war crime. Yet America will be able to kill the same number of civilians with the
same deliberate intention of inflicting deadly force, and it would suffer essentially no
consequences at all. There's no public or international pressure holding that form of violence
at bay, because it's invisible and poorly understood.
It reminds me of the way financial abuse gets overlooked and under-appreciated in our
society. Financial abuse can be more painful and imprisoning than physical or psychological
abuse (and I speak from experience), especially if you have children, yet you don't generally
see movies and TV shows getting made about it. In a society where people have been made to
depend on money for survival, limiting or cutting off their access to it is the same as any
other violent attack upon their personal sovereignty, and can easily be just as destructive.
But as a society we haven't yet learned to see and understand this violence, so it doesn't
attract interest and attention. That lack of interest and attention enables the empire to
launch deadly campaigns targeting civilian populations unnoticed, without any public
accountability. It's great that more people are starting to understand the cost of war, to the
extent that we're even seeing US presidential candidates make opposing it central to their
platforms, but this is happening at a time when overt warfare is becoming more obsolete and
replaced with something subtler and more sinister. We must as a society evolve our
understanding of what starvation sanctions are and what they do, and stop seeing them as in any
way superior or preferable to overt warfare.
The fact that people generally oppose senseless military violence but are unable to see and
comprehend a slow, boa constrictor-like act of slaughter via economic strangulation is why
these siege warfare tactics have become the weapon of choice for the US-centralized empire. It
is a more gradual way of murdering people than overt warfare, but when you control all the
resources and have an underlying power structure which maintains itself amid the comings and
goings of your officially elected government, you're in no hurry. The absence of any public
accountability makes the need for patience a very worthwhile trade-off.
So you see this siege warfare strategy employed everywhere by the US-centralized empire:
You see it with Iran and Venezuela.
You see it in Yemen, where in addition to deadly blockades the Saudis have been
deliberate targeting farms, fishing boats, marketplaces, food storage sites and
cholera treatment centers with US-assisted airstrikes.
You
saw it with Julian Assange , where Ecuador collaborated with the US to slowly make life
in the embassy more and more hellish in the hope that he'd step outside to be arrested by
British police.
You're
seeing it now with Chelsea Manning , who is currently racking up $500 a day fines for her
principled stand against a corrupt grand jury proceeding against Assange, fines which will
double next month to $1,000 a day.
The US-centralized power alliance is so powerful in its ability to hurt nations with
financial influence that in 1990 when Yemen voted against a UN Security Council Resolution
authorizing the attack against Iran, a senior US diplomat was caught on a hot mic telling the
Yemeni ambassador, "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." According to
German author Thomas Pogge , "The US stopped $70 million in aid to Yemen; other Western
countries, the IMF, and World Bank followed suit. Saudi Arabia expelled some 800,000 Yemeni
workers, many of whom had lived there for years and were sending urgently needed money to their
families."
That's real power. Not the ability to destroy a nation with bombs and missiles, but the
ability to destroy it without firing a shot.
It's no wonder, then, that the drivers of this empire work so hard to continue growing and
expanding it. The oligarchs and their allies in opaque government agencies no doubt envision a
world where all noncompliant nations like Iran, Russia and China have been absorbed into the
blob of empire and war becomes obsolete, not because anyone has become any less violent, but
because their economic control will be so complete that they can obliterate entire populations
just by cutting them off from the world economy whenever any of them become disobedient.
This is the only reason Iran is being targeted right now. That's why you'll never hear a
factually and logically sound argument defending Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal;
there is none. There was no problem with the JCPOA other than the fact that it barred America
from inflicting economic warfare upon Iran, which it needed for the purpose of toppling the
nation's government so that it can be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized empire.
And all the innocent human beings who die of starvation and disease? They don't matter.
Imperial violence only matters if there are consequences for it. The price of shoring up the
total hegemony of the empire will have been worth it .
"... "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.
Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed the U.S. establishment for preventing an improvement in relations
between Moscow and Washington.
During his annual televised question-and-answer session with members of the
public, Putin was asked about the prospects for better ties if he met with President Donald Trump.
The Russian energy Ministry's department head Evgeny Grabchak, who faces U.S. sanctions, asked Putin on
air if he would "want to meet with Trump."
Putin replied that dialogue with the U.S. was "always good" adding that Russia was "ready for this
dialogue as long as our partners were too."
Putin went on: "But even if Trump wants to change anything, there are restrictions imposed by other
organs of power. There is a part of the American establishment that continues to invent fake news. We have
things to discuss with Trump in all areas, including the economy,"
Novaya Gazyeta
reported.
"... Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and forensically impossible. ..."
"... Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. ..."
"... "War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war," video, as well as the bipartisan ( Hillary Clinton , John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an "act of war" equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the warmongering lunatic John Bolton, calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war." ..."
"... Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy": "We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy." ..."
"... The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all. We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted. ..."
It's a relentless economic, diplomatic, and ideological war, spiced with (so far) just a
dash of military war, and the strong scent of more to come.
I mean war with Russia, of course, although Russia is the point target for a constellation
of emerging adversaries the US is desperate to entame before any one or combination of them
becomes too strong to defeat. These include countries like Iran and China, which are developing
forces capable of resisting American military aggression against their own territory and on a
regional level, and have shown quite too much uppitiness about staying in their
previously-assigned geopolitical cages.
But Russia is the only country that has put its military forces in the way of a U.S. program
of regime change -- indirectly in Ukraine, where Russia would not get out of the way, and
directly in Syria, where Russia actively got in the way. So Russia is the focus of
attack, the prime target for an exemplary comeuppance.
Is it, then, a new Cold War, even more dangerous than the old one, as Stephen F. Cohen
says ?
That terminology was apt even a few months ago, but the speed, ferocity, and
coordination of the West/NATO's reaction to the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the
Skripals, as well as the formation of a War Cabinet in Washington, indicates to me that we've
moved to another level of aggression.
It's beyond Cold. Call it the Warm War. And the temperature's rising.
The Nerve of Them
There are two underlying presumptions that, combined, make present situation more dangerous
than a Cold War.
One is the presumption of guilt -- or, more precisely, the presumption that the presumption
of Russian guilt can always be made, and made to stick in the Western mind.
The confected furor over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals demonstrates this
dramatically.
Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole
responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and
forensically impossible.
False certainty is the ultimate fake news. It is just not true that, as she says: "There is
no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state is culpable." This falsity of this
statement has been demonstrated by a slew of sources -- including the
developers of the alleged "Novichok" agent themselves, a thorough
analysis by a former UN inspector in Iraq who worked on the destruction of chemical
weapons, establishment Western scientific outlets like New Scientist ("
Other countries could have made 'Russian' nerve agent "), and the British government's own
mealy-mouthed, effective-but-unacknowledged disavowal
of that conclusion. In its own words, The British government found: "a nerve agent or
related compound," " of a type developed by Russia." So, it's absolutely,
positively, certainly, without a doubt, Russian-government-produced "Novichok" .or something
else.
Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they
all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. It's a
It boggles the -- or at least, my -- mind how, in the face of all this, anyone could take
seriously her ultimatum, ignoring the procedures of the
Chemical Weapons Convention , gave Russia 24 hours to "explain" -- i.e., confess and beg
forgiveness for -- this alleged crime.
Indeed, it's noteworthy that France initially, and rather sharply, refused to assume Russian
guilt, with a government spokesman saying, "We don't do fantasy politics. Once the elements are
proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made." But the whip was cracked -- and
surely not by the weak hand of Whitehall -- demanding EU/NATO unity in the condemnation of
Russia. So, in an extraordinary show of discipline that could only be ordered and orchestrated
by the imperial center, France joined the United States and 20 other countries in the largest
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats ever.
Western governments and their compliant media have mandated that Russian government guilt
for the "
first offensive use of a nerve agent " in Europe since World War II is to be taken as flat
fact. Anyone -- like Jeremy Corbyn or Craig Murray -- who
dares to interrupt the "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!" chorus to ask for, uh, evidence,
is treated to a storm of obloquy
.
At this point, Western accusers don't seem to care how blatantly unfounded, if not
ludicrous, an accusation is. The presumption of Russian guilt, along with the shaming of anyone
who questions it, has become an unquestionable standard of Western/American political and media
discourse.
Old Cold War McCarthyism has become new Warm War fantasy politics.
Helled in Contempt
This declaration of diplomatic war over the Skripal incident is the culmination of an
ongoing drumbeat of ideological warfare, demonizing Russia and Putin personally in the most
predictable and inflammatory terms.
For the past couple of years, we've been
told by Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and
Boris Johnson that Putin is the new Hitler. That's a particularly galling analogy for the
Russians. Soviet Russia, after all, was Hitler's main enemy, that defeated the Nazi army at the
cost of 20+ million of its people -- while the British Royal Family was not
un-smitten with the charms of
Hitlerian fascism , and British footballers had a poignant moment in 1938 Berlin
saluting the Fuhre.:
"War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been
inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war,"
video, as well as the bipartisan (
Hillary Clinton ,
John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an
"act of war"
equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the
warmongering lunatic John Bolton,
calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war."
Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up
by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's
noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy":
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial
support provided by the enemy."
Which is strange, because, since the Taliban emerged from the American-jihadi war against
Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the Taliban and Russia have "enduring enmity" towards each
other, as Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network puts it . Furthermore, the sixteen-year-long
American war against the Taliban has depended on Russia allowing the U.S. to move
supplies through its territory, and being "the principal source of
fuel for the alliance's needs in Afghanistan."
So the general has to admit that this alleged Russian "destabilising activity" is a new
thing: "This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months When you look at the timing
it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note
the timing of the whole thing."
Yes, it is.
The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem
impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and
restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven
to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all.
We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if
you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted.
This is not a serious framework for respectful international relations between two sovereign
nations. It's downright childish. It paints everyone, including the party trying to impose it,
into an impossible corner. Is Russia ever going to abandon Crimea, confess that it shot down
the Malaysian jet, tricked us into electing Donald Trump, murdered the Skripals, is secretly
arming the Taliban, et. al .? Is the U.S. ever going to say: "Never mind"? What's the
next step? It's the predicament of the bully.
This is not, either, an approach that really seeks to address any of the "crimes" charged.
As Victoria Nuland (a Clintonite John Bolton) put it on NPR, it's about, "sending a message" to
Russia. Well, as Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov
said , with this latest mass expulsion of diplomats, the United States is, "Destroying what
little remained of US-Russian ties." He got the message.
All of this looks like a coordinated campaign that began in response to Russia's
interruption of American regime-change projects in Ukraine and especially Syria, that was
harmonized -- over the last 18 to 24 months -- with various elite and popular motifs of
discontent over the 2016 election, and that has reached a crescendo in the last few weeks with
ubiquitous and unconstrained " enemization " [1] of Russia.
It's hard to describe it as anything other than war propaganda -- manufacturing the
citizenry's consent for a military confrontation.
Destroying the possibility of normal, non-conflictual, state-to-state relations and
constituting Russia as "the enemy" is exactly what this campaign is about. That is its
"message" and its effect -- for the American people as much as for the Russia
government. The heightened danger, I think, is that Russia, which has for a long time been
reluctant to accept that America wasn't interested in "partnership", has now heard and
understood this message, while the American people have only heard but do not understand
it.
It's hard to see where this can go that doesn't involve military conflict. This is
especially the case with the appointments of Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel, and John Bolton -- a
veritable murderers' row that many see as the core of a Trump War Cabinet. Bolton, who does not
need Senate confirmation, is a particularly dangerous fanatic, who tried to
get the Israelis to attack Iran before even they wanted to, and has
promised regime change in Iran by 2019. As mentioned, he considers that Russia has already
given him a " casus belli. " Even the staid New York Timeswarns
that, with these appointments, "the odds of taking military action will rise dramatically."
The second presumption in the American mindset today makes military confrontation more
likely than it was during the Cold War: Not only is there a presumption of guilt, there is a
presumption of weakness . The presumption of guilt is something the American imperial
managers are confident they can induce and maintain in the Western world; the presumption of
weakness is one they -- or, I fear, too many of them -- have all-too blithely
internalized.
This is an aspect of the American self-image among policymakers whose careers matured in a
post-Soviet world. During the Cold War, Americans held themselves in check by the assumption,
that, militarily, the Soviet Union was a peer adversary, a country that could and would defend
certain territories and interests against direct American military aggression -- "spheres of
interest" that should not be attacked. The fundamental antagonism was managed with grudging
mutual respect.
There was, after all, a shared recent history of alliance against fascism. And there was an
awareness that the Soviet Union, in however distorted a way, both represented the possibility
of a post-capitalist future and supported post-colonial national liberation movements, which
gave it considerable stature in the world.
American leadership might have hated the Soviet Union, but it was not contemptuous of it. No
American leader would have called the Soviet Union, as John McCain called Russia, just "a gas
station masquerading as a country." And no senior American or British leader would have told
the Soviet Union what British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson told Russia last week: to "go
away and shut up."
This is a discourse that assumes its own righteousness, authority, and superior power, even
as it betrays its own weakness. It's the discourse of a frustrated child. Or bully. Russia
isn't shutting up and going away, and the British are not -- and know they're not -- going to
make it. But they may think the Big Daddy backing them up can and will. And daddy may think so
himself.
Like all bullies, the people enmeshed in this arrogant discourse don't seem to understand
that it is not frightening Russia. It's only insulting the country, and leading it to conclude
that there is indeed nothing remaining of productive, non-conflictual, US-Russian "partnership"
ties. The post-Skripal worldwide diplomatic expulsions, which seem deliberately and desperately
excessive, may have finally convinced Russia that there is no longer any use trying. Those who
should be frightened of this are the American people.
The enemy of my enemy is me.
The United States is only succeeding in turning itself into an enemy for Russians. Americans
would do well to understand how thoroughly their hypocritical and contemptuous stance has
alienated the Russian people and strengthened Vladimir Putin's leadership -- as many of Putin's
critics warned
them it would. The fantasy of stoking a "liberal" movement in Russia that will install some
nouveau-Yeltsin-ish figure is dissipated in the cold light of a 77% election day. Putin is
widely and firmly supported in Russia because he represents the resistance to any such
scheme.
Americans who want to understand that dynamic, and what America itself has wrought in
Russia, should heed the passion, anger, and disappointment in this statement about
Putin's election from a self-described "liberal" (using the word, I think, in the intellectual
tradition, not the American political, sense), Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT TV
(errors in translation by another person):
Essentially, the West should be horrified not because 76% of Russians voted for Putin, but
because this elections have demonstrated that 95% of Russia's population supports
conservative-patriotic, communist and nationalist ideas. That means that liberal ideas are
barely surviving among measly 5% of population.
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode
[W]ith all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to
stop respecting you. You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer.
We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all
those people who support you.
For that you only have yourself to blame.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him .
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
In fact, the whole "uprising"/color revolution strategy throughout the world is over. It's
been fatally discredited by its own purported successes. Everybody in the Middle East has seen
how that worked out for Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the Russians have seen how it worked out
for Ukraine and for Russia
itself . In neither Russia nor Iran (nor anywhere else of importance) are the Americans,
with their sanctions and their NGOs and their
cookies ,going to stoke a popular uprising that turns a country into a fractured client of
the Washington Consensus. More fantasy politics.
The old new world Washington wants won't be born without a military midwife. The U.S. wants
a compliant Russia ( and "international community") back, and it thinks it can force it
into being.
Fear Knot
Consider this quote from
The Saker , a defense analyst who was born in Switzerland to a Russian military family,
"studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all [his] life," and lived for 20 years in the
United States. He's been one of the sharpest analysts of Russia and Syria over the last few
years. This was his take a year ago, after Trump's cruise missile attack on Syria's Al Shayrat
airfield -- another instant punishment for an absolutely, positively, proven-in-a day, chemical
crime:
For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began
saying that the Americans were
"недоговороспособны".
What that word means is literally "not-agreement-capable" or unable to make and then abide by
an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so
much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
But to say that a nuclear world superpower is "not-agreement-capable" is a terrible and
extreme diagnostic.
This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult,
sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.
In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume
that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As
were the Americans.
Not only do I find the Trump administration "not agreement-capable", I find it completely
detached from reality. Delusional in other words.
Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear here: if pushed into a corner the
Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.
There is a reason for this American delusion. The present generation of American leadership
was spoiled and addled by the blissful post-Soviet decades of American impunity.
The problem is not exactly that the U.S. wants full-on war with Russia, it's that
America does not fear it. [2]
Why should it? It hasn't had to for twenty years during which the US assumed it could bully
Russia to stay out of its imperial way anywhere it wanted to intervene.
After the Soviet Union broke up (and only because the Soviet Union disappeared) the
United States was free to use its military power with impunity. For some time, the U.S. had its
drunken stooge, Yeltsin, running Russia and keeping it out of America's military way. There was
nary a peep when Bill Clinton effectively conferred on NATO (meaning the U.S. itself) the
authority to decide what military interventions were necessary and legitimate. For about twenty
years -- from the Yugoslavia through the Libya intervention -- no nation had the military power
or politico-diplomatic will to resist this.
But that situation has changed. Even the Pentagon
recognizes that the American Empire is in a "post-primacy" phase -- certainly "fraying,"
and maybe even "collapsing." The world has seen America's social and economic strength
dissipate, and its pretense of legitimacy disappear entirely. The world has seen American
military overreach everywhere while winning nothing of stable value anywhere. Sixteen years,
and the mighty U.S. Army cannot defeat the Taliban. Now, that's Russia's fault!
Meanwhile, a number of countries in key areas have gained the military confidence and
political will to refuse the presumptions of American arrogance -- China in the Pacific, Iran
in the Middle East, and Russia in Europe and, surprisingly, the Middle East as well. In a
familiar pattern, America's resultant anxiety about waning power increases its
compensatory aggression. And, as mentioned, since it was Russia that most effectively
demonstrated that new military confidence, it's Russia that has to be dealt with first.
The incessant wave of sanctions and expulsions is the bully in the schoolyard clenching his
fist to scare the new kid away. OK, everyone's got the message now. Unclench or punch?
Let's be clear about who is the world's bully. As is evident to any half-conscious person,
Russia is not going to attack the United States or Europe. Russia doesn't have scores of
military bases, combat ships and aircraft up on America's borders. It doesn't have almost a
thousand military bases around the world. Russia does not have the military forces to rampage
around the world as America does, and it doesn't want or need to. That's not because of
Russia's or Vladimir Putin's pacifism, but because Russia, as presently situated in the
political economy of the world, has nothing to gain from it.
Nor does Russia need some huge troll-farm offensive to "destabilize" and sow division in
Western Europe and the United States. Inequality, austerity, waves of immigrants from
regime-change wars, and trigger-happy cops are doing a fine job of that. Russia isn't
responsible for American problems with Black Lives Matter or with the Taliban.
All of this is fantasy politics.
It's the United States, with its fraying empire, that has a problem requiring military
aggression. What other tools does the U.S. have left to put the upstarts, Russia first, back in
their places?
It must be hard for folks who have had their way with country after country for twenty years
not to think they can push Russia out of the way with some really, really scary threats, or
maybe one or two "bloody nose" punches. Some finite number of discrete little escalations.
There's already been some shoving -- that cruise missile attack, Turkey's downing of a Russian
jet, American attacks on Russian personnel (ostensibly private mercenaries) in Syria -- and,
look, Ma, no big war. But sometimes you learn the hard way the truth of the reverse Mike Tyson
rule: "Everyone has a game plan until they smack the other guy in the face."
Consider one concrete risk of escalation that every informed observer is, and every American
should be, aware of.
The place where the United States and Russia are literally, geographically, closest to
confrontation is Syria. As mentioned, the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey, have already attacked
and killed Russians in Syria, and the U.S. and its NATO allies have a far larger military force
than Russia in Syria and the surrounding area. On the other hand, Russia has made very
effective use of its forces, including what Reuters
calls "advanced cruise missiles" launched from planes,
ships , and
submarines that hit ISIS targets with high precision from 1000 kilometers.
Russia is also operating in accordance with international law, while the U.S. is not. Russia
is fighting with Syria for the defeat of jihadi forces and the unification of the Syrian state.
The United States is fighting with its jihadi clients for the overthrow of the Syrian
government and the division of the country. Russia intervened in Syria after Obama announced
that the U.S. would attack Syrian army troops, effectively declaring war. If neither side
accepts defeat and goes home, it is quite possible there will be some direct confrontation
over this. In fact, it's hard to imagine that there won't.
A couple of weeks ago Syria and Russia
said the U.S. was planning a major offensive against the Syrian government, including
bombing the government quarter in Damascus. Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff,
warned: "In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia's armed forces will
take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used." In this context,
"launchers" means American ships in the Mediterranean.
Also a couple of weeks ago, Russia announced a number of new, highly-advanced weapons
systems. There's discussion about whether some of the yet-to-be-deployed weapons announced
may or
may not
be a bluff, but one that has already been deployed, called Dagger ( Kinzhal, not the
missiles mentioned above), is an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile that files at 5-7,000
miles per hour, with a range of 1200 miles. Analyst Andrei Martyanov claims that: "no
modern or perspective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a
single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the
destruction of any Carrier Battle Group or any other surface group, for that matter."
Air-launched. From anywhere.
The U.S. attack has not (yet) happened, for whatever reason (Sputnik reporter Suliman
Mulhem, citing "a military monitor," claims
that's because of the Russian warnings). Great. But given the current state of America's
anxiously aggressive "post-primacy" policy -- including the Russiamania, the Zionist-driven
need to destroy Syria and Iran, and the War Cabinet -- how unlikely is that the U.S. will, in
the near future, make some such attack on some such target that Russia considers crucial to
defend?
And Syria is just one theater where, unless one side accepts defeat and goes home, military
conflict with Russia is highly likely. Is Russia going to abandon the Russian-speaking people
of the Donbass if they're attacked by fascist Kiev forces backed by the U.S.? Is it going to
sit back and watch passively if American and Israeli forces attack Iran? Which one is going to
give up and accept a loss: John Bolton or Vladimir Putin?
Which brings us to the pointed question: What will the U.S. do if Russia sinks an American
ship? How many steps before that goes full-scale, even nuclear? Or maybe American planners (and
you, dear reader) are absolutely, positively sure that will never happen, because the U.S. has
cool weapons, too, and a lot more of them, and the Russians will probably lose all their ships
in the Mediterranean immediately, if not something worse, and they'll put up with anything
rather than go one more step. The Russians, like everybody, must know the Americans always
win.
Happy with that, are we? Snug in our homeland rug? 'Cause Russians won't fight, but the
Taliban will.
This is exactly what is meant by Americans not fearing war with Russia (or war in general
for that matter). Nothing but contempt.
The Skripal opera, directed by the United States, with the whole of Europe and the entire
Western media apparatus singing in harmony, makes it clear that the American producers have no
speaking role for Russia in their staging of the world. And that contempt makes war much more
likely. Here's The Saker again, on how
dangerous the isolation the U.S. and its European clients are so carelessly imposing on Russia
and themselves is for everybody:
Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en mass e and they are feeling very
strong and manly.
The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial
expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have
all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone calls. That kind of stuff
happens when two sides are about to go to war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made
preparations for war in Europe. Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and
Russia. Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history, the
USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the
continental US.
Mass diplomatic expulsions, economic warfare, lockstep propaganda, no interest whatsoever in
respectfully addressing or hearing from the other side. What we've been seeing over the past
few months is the "kind of stuff that happens when two sides are about to go to war."
The less Americans fear war, the less they respect the possibility of it, the more likely
they are to get it.
Ready or Not
The Saker makes a diptych of a point that gets to the heart of the matter. We'd do well to
read and think on it carefully:
1/ The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
2/ The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.
Russia is afraid of war. More than twenty million Soviet citizens were
killed in WWII, about half of them civilians. That was more than twenty times the number of
Americans and British casualties combined. The entire country was devastated. Millions died in
the 872-day siege of Leningrad alone, including Vladimir Putin's brother. The city's population
was decimated by disease and starvation, with some reduced to cannibalism. Wikileaks calls it "one of the
longest and most destructive sieges in history [and] possibly the
costliest
in casualties." Another million-plus died in the nine-month siege of Stalingrad.
Every Russian knows this history. Millions of Russian families have suffered from it. Of
course, there was mythification of the struggle and its heroes, but the Russians, viscerally,
know war and know it can happen to them . They do not want to go through it
again. They will do almost anything to avoid it. Russians are not flippant about war. They fear
it. They respect it.
The Americans are not (afraid of war). Americans have never experienced anything
remotely as devastating as this. About 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War, 150 years ago.
(And we're still entangled in that!) The American mainland has not been attacked by a
significant military force since the War of 1812. Since then, the worst attacks on American
territory are two one-off incidents (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), separated by seventy years,
totaling about six-thousand casualties. These are the iconic moments of America Under
Siege.
For the American populace, wars are "over there," fought by a small group of Americans who
go away and either come back or don't. The death, destruction, and aroma of warfare -- which
the United States visits on people around the world incessantly -- is unseen and unexperienced
at home. Americans do not, cannot, believe, in any but the most abstract intellectual sense,
that war can happen here , to them. For the general populace, talk of war is just more
political background noise, Morgan Freeman competing for attention with Stormy Daniels and the
Kardashians.
Americans are supremely insouciant about war: They threaten countries with it incessantly,
the government routinely sells it with lies, and the political parties promote it
opportunistically to defeat their opponents -- and nobody cares. For Americans, war is part of
a game. They do not fear it. They do not respect it.
The Russians are ready for war. The Nazi onslaught was defeated -- in Soviet Russia,
by Soviet Citizens and the Red Army -- because the mass of people stood and fought together for
a victory they understood was important. They could not have withstood horrific sieges and
defeated the Nazis any other way. Russians understand, in other words, that war is a crisis of
death and destruction visited on the whole of society, which can only be won by a massive and
difficult effort grounded in social solidarity. If the Russians feel they have to fight, if
they feel besieged, they know they will have to stand together, take the hits that come, and
fight to the finish. They will not again permit war to be brought to their cities while their
attacker stays snug. There will be a world of hurt. They will develop and use any weapon they
can. And their toughest weapon is not a hypersonic missile; it's that solidarity, implied by
that 77%. (Did you read that Simonyan statement?) They may not be seeking it, but, insofar as
anybody can be, they are ready to fight.
Americans are not (ready for war): Americans experience the horror of wars as a
series of discrete tragedies visited upon families of fallen soldiers, reported in
human-interest vignettes at the end of the nightly news. Individual tragedies, not a social
disaster.
It's hard to imagine the social devastation of war in any case, but American culture wants
no part of thinking about that concretely. The social imagination of war is deflected into
fantastic scenarios of a super-hero universe or a zombie apocalypse. The alien death-ray may
blow up the Empire State Building, but the hero and his family (now including his or her
gender-ambivalent teenager, and, of course, the dog) will survive and triumph. Cartoon
villains, cartoon heroes, and a cartoon society.
One reason for this, we have to recognize, is the victory of the
Thatcherite/libertarian-capitalist "no such thing as society" ideology. Congratulations, Ayn
Rand, there is no such thing as American society now. It's every incipient entrepreneur
for him or herself. This does not a comradely, fighting band of brothers and sisters make.
Furthermore, though America is constantly at war, nobody understands the purpose of it.
That's because the real purpose can never be explained, and must be hidden behind some facile
abstraction -- "democracy," "our freedoms," etc. This kind of discourse can get some of the
people motivated for some of the time, but it loses its charm the minute someone gets smacked
in the face.
Once they take a moment, everybody can see that there is nobody with an army threatening to
attack and destroy the United States, and if they take a few moments, everybody can see how
phony the "democracy and freedom" stuff is and remember how often they've been lied to before.
There's just too much information out there. (Which is why the Imperial High Command wants to
control the internet.) Why the hell am I fighting? What in hell are we fighting
for? These are questions everybody will ask after, and too many people are now asking
before, they get smacked in the face.
This lack of social understanding and lack of political support translates into the
impossibility of fighting a major, sustained war that requires taking heavy casualties -- even
"over there," but certainly in the snug. American culture might be all gung-ho about Seal Team
Six kicking ass, but the minute American homes start blowing up and American bodies start
falling, Hoo-hah becomes Uh-oh , and it's going to be Outta here .
Americans are ready for Hoo-hah and the Shark Tank and the Zombie Apocalypse. They
are not ready for war.
You Get What You Play For
"Russiagate," which started quite banally in the presidential campaign as a Democratic arrow
to take down Trump, is now Russiamania -- a battery of weapons wielded by various sectors of
the state, aimed at an array of targets deemed even potentially resistant to imperial
militarism. Trump himself -- still, and for as long as he's deemed unreliable -- is targeted by
a legal prosecution of infinite reach (whose likeliest threat is to take him down for something
that has nothing to do with Russia). Russia itself is now targeted in full force by economic,
diplomatic, ideological -- and, tentatively, military -- weapons of the state. Perhaps most
importantly, American and European people, especially dissidents, are targeted by a unified
media barrage that attacks any expression of radical critique, anything that "sows division" --
from Black Lives Matter, to the Sanders campaign, to "But other countries could have made it"
-- as Russian treachery.
The stunning success of that last offensive is crucial to making a war more likely, and must
be fought. To increase the risk of war with a nuclear power in order to score points against
Donald Trump or Jill Stein -- well, only those who neither respect, fear, nor are ready for war
would do such a stupid and dangerous thing.
It's impossible to predict with certainty whether, when, or with whom a major hot war will
be started. The same chaotic disarray and impulsiveness of the Trump administration that
increases the danger of war might also work to prevent it. John Bolton may be fired before he
trims his moustache. But it's a pressure-cooker, and the temperature has spiked
drastically.
In a previous
essay , I said that Venezuela was a likely first target for military attack, precisely
because it would make for an easy victory that didn't risk military confrontation with Russia.
That's still a good possibility. As we saw with Iraq Wars 1 (which helped to end the "Vietnam
Syndrome") and 2 (which somewhat resurrected it), the imperial high command needs to inure the
American public with a virtually American-casualty-free victory and in order to lure them into
taking on a war that's going to hurt.
But the new War Cabinet may be pumped for the main event -- an attack on Iran. Trump,
Pompeo, and Bolton are all rabid proponents of regime-change in Iran. We can be certain
that the Iran nuclear deal will be scrapped, and everyone will work hard to implement the
secret agreementthe Trump administration already has with Israel to "to deal
with Iran's nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activities" -- or, as
Trump himself expresses it: "cripple the [Iranian] regime and bring it to collapse." (That
agreement, by the way, was negotiated and signed by the previous, supposedly not-so-belligerent
National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster.)
Still, as I also said in the previous essay, an attack on Iran means the Americans must
either make sure Russia doesn't get in the way or make clear that they don't care if it
does. So, threatening moves -- not excluding probing military moves -- against Russia will
increase, whether Russia is the preferred direct target or not.
The siege is on.
Americans who want to continue playing with this fire would do well to pay some respectful
attention to the target whose face they want to smack. Russia did not boast or brag or threaten
or Hoo-Hah about sending military forces to Syria. When it was deemed necessary -- when
the United States declared its intention to attack the Syrian Army -- it just did it. And
American10-dimensional-chess players have been squirming around trying to deal with the
implications of that ever since. They're working hard on finding the right mix of threats,
bluffs, sanctions, expulsions, "Shut up and go away!" insults, military forces on the border,
and "bloody nose" attacks to force a capitulation. They should be listening to their target,
who has not tired of asking for a "partnership," who has clearly stated what his country would
do in reaction to previous moves (e.g., the abrogation of the ABM Treaty and stationing of ABM
bases in Eastern Europe), whose country and family have suffered from wartime devastation
Americans cannot imagine, who therefore respects, fears, and is ready for war in ways Americans
are not, and who is not playing their game:
[2]
Though it's ridiculous that it needs to be said: I'm not talking here about the phony fear
engendered by the media presentation of the "strongman," "brutal dictator" Vladimir Putin. This
is part and parcel of comic-book politics -- conjuring a super-villain, who, we all know, is
destined to be defeated. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jim Kavanagh
Despite
the deep schism that separates America's deranged political duopoly, they do share a common
foreign policy pet project, and that is to prevent Russia from ever shining again on the global
stage in all fields of endeavor.
One of Donald Trump's main pledges on the 2016 campaign trail was to rekindle the dying
embers of US-Russia relations, which had been undergoing a mini Ice Age under Barack Obama, his
ballyhooed 'reset' notwithstanding. But before Trump was ever put to the test of romancing
Russia, he was sidelined by one of the most malicious political stunts of the modern age.
It is only necessary to recall the 2016 Winter of Our Discontent when the Democratic leader
sent
35 Russian diplomats and their families packing just before New Year's Eve in retaliation for
Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee's computers. Before
Trump ascended the throne, those unfounded claims lit the fuse on 'Russiagate,' the debacle
which continues to undermine not just US-Russia relations, but the entire US political
system.
Yet would things have turned out any differently between Washington and Moscow had the
Democrats graciously accepted defeat in 2016 without feeling the need to blame remote Russia? I
am not sure.
Today, observers reason that
the US Republicans have no choice but to 'get tough' on Russia in an effort to dispel
Democrat-generated rumors of excessive coziness with the Kremlin. Last year, for example, Trump
bested Obama on the Russia front when he expelled 60 Russian diplomats in response to an
alleged assassination attempt on former British spy, Sergey Skripal; an astonishing move on the
part of the US conservative, but with so much riding on the line was it really a surprise?
And what was it exactly that was 'riding on the line'? Aside from good relations between the
world's two premier nuclear powers, not to mention thwarting nuclear Armageddon as Prime
Minister Theresa May very unwisely
issued an ultimatum to Russia over the matter, there is the question of hundreds of
billions of dollars of business contracts – from gas supplies to military hardware.
Tycoon Trump would sooner win over European gas supplies than the plains of Central Asia, for
example, the geopolitical lynchpin so dear to the hearts of US policymakers, like the late
Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is where so many people misread Donald Trump: His heart and mind is
devoted to the business deals, not the military steals. But that doesn't necessarily make his
moves are any less dangerous.
From President Trump's perspective, Russia is a 500-pound cigar-chomping guy at the
negotiating table with an ego and stature equal to his own that must be vanquished lest The
Deal be lost and he – Donald J. Trump, CEO and Founder of The Trump Organization –
look like a second-rate negotiator and fraud. Similar to the methods a belligerent globalist,
Trump the inveterate businessman will do anything to achieve leverage in the pursuit of
profit.
This is where Trump was only too happy to oblige the British with their extremely suspect
Skripal story because vilifying the Russians, once again, would give the US an upper hand in
stealing business away from Moscow, most notably in the realm of European gas supplies.
Presently, the Trump administration is trying hard to halt progress on Nord Stream 2, an
ambitious 11 billion euro ($12.4 billion) project to construct a gas pipeline under the Baltic
Sea from Russia to Germany.
Speaking from Kiev this week, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry
said Washington, once again endorsing the spirit of free competition and enterprise, was
preparing to introduce sanctions on foreign companies involved in the project.
But that's just the beginning.
To show how low the Americans would stoop to get a piece of this lucrative European market,
which the Russian's have been dutifully supplying for many decades, they've gone for some
dramatic
rebranding , calling LNG supplies "freedom gas." You know, the byproduct of 'freedom
fries.'
"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom
gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean
energy," said US Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes.
Dmitry Peskov, official spokesman of the Russian president, scoffed at such cynical attempts
by Washington to strong-arm nations into accepting its preferred version of the 'free
market.'
"Instead of fair competition they prefer to act like in Wild West times," Peskov told RT's
Sophie Shevardnadze ahead of the St.
Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). "They just show the gun and say that no,
you guys here in Europe, you are going to buy our natural gas and we don't care that it is at
least 30% more expensive than the gas coming from the Russians. This is the case."
Perhaps nowhere else is this effort to 'control the market' more evident than in the realm
of military spending, and particularly among NATO states. Currently, European countries spend
some $240 billion annually on military weapons and forces, while Russia spends just $66 billion
each year. Yet for businessmen like Trump, that is not good enough. Employing the vacuous claim
of an 'aggressive Russia,' Trump is passing around the proverbial hat, demanding
that NATO members contribute an ever-higher amount of their GDP to military spending. At the
same, the eastern border with Russia has become militarized like never before.
Here there is striking convergence on the part of the Democrats and Republicans when it
comes to Russia. The Democrats under Barack Obama, accepting the baton passed to them by the
Bush administration, dropped a US-made missile
defense system in Romania, a stone's throw from the Russian border. Obama's assurances that the
Russians would be allowed to participate in the project were casually forgotten. But the
Russians, who know a thing or two about military strategy, did not forget. Last year, Vladimir
Putin unveiled a number of
daunting military breakthroughs, including hypersonic weapons, which the Russian leader
explained were developed with the sole purpose of striking a strategic balance between the two
nuclear superpowers. And if the world needs more of anything these days, it is certainly
balance.
With such ploys in mind, it is easy to see why Moscow has little cause for celebration with
either a Democrat or Republican in the White House. Both political parties have long viewed
Russia not as a potential partner that could lend tremendous assistance in resolving some of
the planet's most intractable problems, but rather as some Cold War foe that needs vilified and
vanquished. Of course there is good reason for this decades-long duplicity. The double-pronged
attack by the Democrats and Republicans allows Washington to continue to make strategic inroads
against Russia, as well as China, while filling the corporate coffers at the same time. It is
an age-old strategy – albeit a foolhardy one in an age of nuclear weapons – which
is doomed to ultimate failure, if not disaster, if left unchecked. The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
NATOPerryRussiaTrumpUS
Have brought up Gabbard's sticking with the lies and false narratives regarding Russia and Ukraine, clearly one of her blind
spots in her "antiwar" political campaign, that along with the massive and unrelenting war OF terror. That letter is a rather disgusting
display of imperialist obfuscation by the duopoly political parties, fully supporting the lies about Maduro and what's happening
in VS and in effect providing cover for future actions. You can't claim to be against military action while also lying about the
reasons. Of course they can, that's how they prep the public for imperial advances. up 4 users have voted.
i totally endorse zuesse's theory, but oh my, he'd brought in a lot of moving parts at the time. paranoid conspiracy theory
or 'coincidence theory', as some brilliant mofo used to ask. (i'l think of his name later.) the russian defense ministry's contentions
are in conflict with zuesse's (buk missiles v. another jet with missiles), but i sure as hell know that the dutch report
decision in advance was bullshit. i'd think that one would have to be willfully blind to accept it at face value, esp.
if any of them like gabbard were on the defense and intel committees at the time. same with madurro's venezuela, to pretend
that it's not mainly the egregious sanctions and blockades that are responsible for the estimated 40,000 citizens who've died
for lack of medicines and food. and now their CLAP food delivery system is under attack...again.
i get that the intel they're fed is rubbish, but they all have the duty to look further than what lies they're spoon fed.
CEPR has been incredibly valuable a resource for one, and it's pretty mainstream.
but he's right about one thing: yanukovitch was overthrown due to his refusal to sign the EU association memo, and when Imperialists
speak of how 'russia stole crimea', or refuse to see why the separatists in the donbass formed their own independent nation-states,
it's utter hypocrisy.
thanks for reading and commenting, big al.
oh, and do you know if tulsi's FP is still at her house.gov site? i looked at all her press releases that were dated after
that offensive letter, but i'd found nothing new.
@wendy davis I mean, there's the establishment/government narrative and there's the truth, that's about all I need to
know. It's like that saying "trust, but verify". I say fuck that, "don't trust, and verify that".
I don't know about Gabbard's FP, she's done some housecleaning and avoided certain things since becoming the CFR's choice for
2024. Again, I've already done enough research, what, for over 3 years now?, to see what she's all about, something I failed
to do in 2007/8 regarding Obama. Lo and behold, all the clues were there just waiting to be uncovered, but I wasn't in the same
place as now.
...by the Russians, who were not allowed to participate in the Dutch investigation. The information and data was presented
to the Dutch and to the Western media in September 2018. Everything one could hope to see in physical evidence is here. There
is additional evidence not in this article that adds to the details and forensics presented here.
This information was not published in the West or in the Vassal State of Netherlands. The US possesses satellite photos of
the incident. But it has classified those photos and refuses to release them.
As for means, motive and opportunity:
• MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, not over Russia.
• It was shot down with a missile owned by Ukraine, not by Russia.
• It had propaganda value for Ukraine and its CIA masters, none for
• The missile was fired from territory controlled by the neo nazi Kiev regime.
But the best evidence of what took place, as far as I'm concerned, is right here:
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, falling in the rebel-held part of
the country. The crash claimed the lives of 283 passengers and 15 crew members, most of them Dutch nationals. Russia
was blamed by Western media in the first days after the tragedy, even before any evidence had been collected on the ground.
and thank you. your memory is prodigious, and having the 2018 RT news is srsly helpful, as is your M,M, & O formula. blame
first, then fail to allow russia (and malaysia) to be able to run investigations. good to know as well that the malaysian minister
knew of the serial numbers and that ukraine owned the missiles.
eric zuesse had said that even dutch journalists were raising havoc with the JIT back in the day. but just think what this
false blame resulting in mega-sanctions began, then onto the skripals, russia-gate in many guises, and tra la la.
mr. wd laughed this mornin' and said he wishes he had a choice to vote for sergei lavrov for prez; i second that!
dunno if the EU still wants a compact with ukraine, but NATO sure wants the neo-nazi nation as a member. ping: if i have
the energy and time, i'll try to find in zuesse's tome admissions by snipers in 2014, as well.
Must admit I didn't hunt down her Ukraine position, but my personal take is Obummer and the CIA set out to foment problems
and managed to get a fascists regime elected in order to oppose Russia. The new Ukrainian president may take things in a more
pro-Russia direction?
site, at her election site. well, check out Russia , for now. and i do thank you; i was lookin' in all the wrong places.
; )i'll check out more soon as i have time, but zounds: russia: crimea, the nation's interference in our election, wooof. of
course jill stein raised boatloads of bucks for recounts in three states on the basis of russian interference, later 'foreign
interference' against the wishes of the green party board and her own running mate, so...there's that, but it was just a dodge
against trump winning, not hillary. sorry, tulsi.
for being in such a hurry i hadn't even registered your speculation about zelenskiy, but nah, he wants crimea and the donbass
self-declared republics that Putin stole from him...back. he's being lauded and applauded for 'standing up to KGB Putin'. ;
)
and the IMF's bailin' em out again so they have enough to pay their NATO dues and join the EU. (just saw that tryin' to remember
how to sorta spell the comic's name.)
maybe it was passengers', was returned to Malaysia ... but in a sealed coffin, that even family members were refused to open.
At the time an OSCE member was the first to arrive at the crash site. Some 20 minutes after the downing. The photos taken
by him, or so it was attributed, showed round holes (not shrapnel) shot in the pilot area. Sorry I don't have any links handy
on either of these, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.
as i understand it, the hole size was not in contention. but weather it had been the pilot or a passenger: '...but in a sealed
coffin, that even family members were refused to open.'
is that perhaps a malaysian custom? is the truth out there somewhere?
eric zuesse remind us, the holes in the cockpit were likely from machine guns on the ukrainian fighter jet sent to make sure
the ukie buk missiles had (omg) killed the plane, which if i'm getting it right (a big IF) was changing direction as it went
down. my apologies for not getting all the moving parts and claims right on this thread.
but the 21st century wire shows charts and evidence that the flight crew was ordered to change course by the air traffic
control tower (as per the later censored bbc plus recordings).
...was involved in the downing of MH17, which was the opinion of many aviation experts and others, who found bullet holes
in the cockpit, wings, and fuselage. This in addition to Buk damage.
Recordings were captured by multiple sources of a frightened and stressed Ukrainian pilot, who radioed, "I shot the wrong
plane!" He sounded as if he was commanded to shoot down a military target plane and was misled into shooting a passenger jet.
That pilot, named Voloshyn, later committed suicide.
The typical recollection of the incident is:
A fighter was also sent up to 'make sure' the target plane was shot down. If I remember rightly, the plane was hit, but
was still flying and it began to turn back. If the plane story (which I tend to believe) is true, it's at that point that
the fighter jet opened fire on the cockpit and wings.
That would also account for Buk damage to the Boeing, as well as fighter machine gun damage to the cockpit.
You can find many references to this incident along with transcripts of the conversation between the fighter pilot and the
ground base.
video confessions from the snipers at maidan (i assume ukrainians firing on protestors in front of the trades union building
that was eventually...burned to the ground.
but this?
"For instance, Moscow said a theory was never tested that the airliner could have been downed by a fighter jet spotted
by Russian radar stations near flight MH17. The theory was later proven false by the discovery of debris from the Buk rocket.
Though Russia doesn't possess those black boxes ( which, by chance, were handed by the pro-Russian separatists to the
Malaysian Government's representative, and yet that Government handed them to Netherland's Government instead of to Russia's
-- apparently trusting Netherlands more than trusting Russia or even themselves), Russia does possess, and publicly reveals,
evidence that's conclusive on its own; and it is 100% consistent with Haisenko's reconstruction of the event, regardless
whether a Buk was involved or not."
one of his links went to ' MH17 Verdict: Real Evidence Points to US-Kiev Cover-up of Failed False Flag '
July 25, 2014 , 21stcenturywire.com
"As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved by ATC Kiev approximately 200 miles north – putting it on a new
course, heading directly into a war zone, a well-known dangerous area by now – one that's hosted a number of downed military
craft over the previous 3 weeks. Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine,
confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly
further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto.
Data on all airline flight records can be found here. The BBC reported on July 17th: " Ukraine's SBU security service
has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner,
a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."
a great (and lengthy) collaborative investigation by 21st century wire. thanks, obomba, thanks, tulsi, thanks Pierre and
vickie nuland. and even the new guy can't control his neo-nazis. but then again, at least yulia tymoshenko didn't win.
but NATO will add them to the roster soon, which is one of the reasons that the atlantic council had recommended him: to
root out poroshenko's oligarchs' corruption.
but i almost wish i hadn't it's sooooo long and full of twists and turns, news reports, videos, but in general the theme
is that mikhail saakashvilli hired them, then stiffed them.
' The "Snipers' Massacre" in Kiev -- Another False Flag? ',
January
13, 2015 , granvillepost.com, eric zuesse
you may remember him best john Mccains buddy: 'today we are all georgians'? like ahmed chalabi, he's the proverbial bad penny
who keeps returning in whatever guise needed (after expulsions), and the
big news this week is that zelenskiy's reinstated his ukrainian
citizenship after promising to give up his former ambitions and work with the new prez.
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
... ... ..
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.
But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of
far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant
to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living
in or near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into
the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that
wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense
the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider
neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia
and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when
the USSR existed.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)
As soon as nations learn to avoid dollar transactions that will dramatically weaken the USA
neoliberal empire. Bulling using technology transfer prohibitions is not effective as Germany and
Japan are now fully recovered from WWII destruction and post immediate threat to the USA
technological hegemony.
We the people needn't worry about our vote for president in as much as we the people
should investigate the people who surround our president's. Trump has been overtaken from his
campaigns foreign policy rhetoric by the same cabal of those who have captured the other
previous presidents from they're living up to their promises, whether by choice or by
compromise. I wish that a presidential campaign requirement were that each presidential
candidate would divulge the cabinet choices they would make as secretary's of our national
agencies. I wish for a lot of things that never will happen but still it would be nice to
know such substantial appointments as opposed to knowing about their personality disorders
wish are always disclosed for further review and constant discussion.
I've said it before that the US is going to sanction itself into obscurity. These
sanctioned nations are many and still growing if you include our allies. It's all sticks and
no carrots. When it all collapses the collapse may be blamed on US arrogance and profit.
"... US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents. ..."
"... The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence. ..."
"... The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's. ..."
US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are
unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of
Washington.
Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining
multiple dimensions.
We will proceed by:
Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building,
specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape
the present and future position of the US. Identifying the spheres of influence and power and
their growth and decline. Examining the regions of conflict and contestation. The major and
secondary rivalries. The stable and shifting relations between existing and rising power
centers. The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global
power. The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.
Conceptualization of Global Power
US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in
World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five
continents.
The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its
hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and
New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial
rulers imposed following independence.
US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies
and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.
Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and
established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of
dominance.
US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in
space.
US Spheres of Power: Then and Now
US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on,
particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in
Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and
disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation
of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's.
US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to
its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries. Washington
destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street
promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped
billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.
The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial
rule.
In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.
The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An
Overview
US global power led Washington into 'overreach', in several crucial areas: it launched a
series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative
consequences: the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the
Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to
the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US
public turned negative toward wars and empire building
The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin's vassal
state. Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power. Russia's population
recovered its living standards.
With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar military
power. Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the
Ukraine. The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian 'statelets' into NATO. Russia countered
by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.
China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning
experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led
to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.
US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting
from the the so-called Washington Consensus. The imposition of neo-liberal policies
privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and
provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left
governments.
The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America,
Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched
new imperial wars in contested terrain. Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in
Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.
The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional
rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy. The Trump regime's aggressive
policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.
The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building
By the second decade of the 21 st century several new global power alignments
emerged: China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major
military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level. The US replaced the former
European colonial empire in Africa. Washington's sphere of influence extended especially in
North and Sub Sahara Africa: Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Trump gained leverage in the
Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.
Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.
But the US faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and
Algeria.
In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm. US influence
declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the present.
Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump
President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic
challenges.
Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton
policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or
reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same
time.
At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power. Like the previous three
presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire
could be re-imposed.
Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of 'rollback'. Trump imposed
economic sanctions, with the strategic 'hope' that by impoverishing Russia, degrading its
financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow
into a vassal state.
At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business
accommodation with Putin. However, Trump's ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic
opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military –
including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.
Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted
to a 'trade war' that went far beyond 'trade' to encompass a war against Beijing's economic
structure and social relations. The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total
boycott of Chinese exports.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state
backed industry. They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules
occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations. Trump demanded all
Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US
business interests. In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the
reversal of the structural base for its global power. The US was not interested in mere 'trade'
– it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.
The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed
its global rivals as potential clients.
Inevitably the Trump regime's strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any
substantial issues under negotiations. China has a successful strategy for global power built
on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60
countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking
industries financed by development banks.
In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial
circuits. The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities
which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.
The Trump regime's 'allies' in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic
allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.
Europe complains about China's increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of
consumer goods. Yet the EU plans to resist Trump's sanctions which lead to a blind alley of
stagnation!
Conclusion
The most recent period of the peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained
the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear
threats.
The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades. The US global empire
building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the
displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.
The Empire spread and penetrated South America via US multi-national corporations. However,
US empire building was not a linear process as witness its unsuccessful confrontation with
national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and
the Caribbean (Cuba). By the early 1960's the US had displaced its European rivals and
successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.
Washington's main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with
their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.
The US empire builders' successes led to the transformation of their Communist and
nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.
In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and
Russia.
Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated
in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US
clients for power.
The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars. Washington lost exclusive
control of markets, resources and alliances. Competition reduced the spheres of US power.
In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy
to recover US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political ,
economic and class relations.
China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each
previous stage.
Russia's recovered from its losses and sanctions and secured alternative trade relations to
counter the new challenges to the US global empire. Trump's regime launched a 'permanent trade
war' without stable allies. Moreover, he failed to undermine China's global infrastructure
network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and
Russia.
Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.
The US still remains a global power. But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base
to 'make America strong'. Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are
not linked to skilled labor to increase productivity.
Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials. Sanctions
may temporarily reduce access to US markets' but we have observed that new trade partners take
their place.
Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject
to reversal.
Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market
and even the rate of growth of the GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability,
and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government. In pursuit of loyalty over
competence, Trump's appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to
wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.
Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has
failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba. Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and
China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors. Bolton can advance
the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it
lacks resonance with any major powers.
Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he
has alienated regional and diplomatic allies. Trump claims he is making America strong, but he
has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.
US 'Global Power' does not prosper with bully-tactics. Projections of power alone, have
failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from
regional wars.
This is a fine synopsis but it leaves out the most fundamental of issues.
The American People don't want to be an Empire, .never asked to be an Empire and despise,
to the core, our ruling elites who defrauded us into becoming one.
We do live in an Empire now, to our chagrin, but it is (in truth) a malevolent empire .an
Empire of Fraud, Belligerence .. and Heinous
F#cking Debt .
Show me one American, anywhere, who is happy about it .
Our ruling elites have "lied" us into multiple wars of "never ending" criminal aggression
..wars which have all but exterminated the solvency of the nation and reaped untold carnage
and misery on tens of millions of people who never attacked us (and never intended to).
This "War Fraud", foisted upon us , has been a catastrophic disaster for our country and
the world.
A "mind -bending, catastrophic, . disaster".
Every single belligerent "oligarch" , "plutocrat" and "establishment elite", who conspired
to defraud us into these "illegal wars", should be rounded up and thrown in federal prison
Every single penny of their assets should be seized to pay down the cost of wars they lied us
into.
This is , hands down, the most meaningful step we could take, as a nation.
Not only would it change the direction of the world, almost overnight, but it would lay
the groundwork for the United States to rebuild itself.
Once we make "Accountability for War Fraud" our nations highest priority, we can repair
and rebuild.
If we don't, we won't and(tragically) might never be able to.
Sanctions are the foreign policy equivalent of obstruction of justice traps. Sanctions
are initiated in the hope the sanctioned country then commits some actionable trepidation, a
Casus belli. They say the first casualty of war is the truth but that casualty comes way
before war starts and continues long after war ends.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"
The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in
China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in
practice.
Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost
all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil.
Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.
India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is
weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.
Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third
of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage
crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.
There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop
this and gain time.
"Russiagate without Russia" actually means "Isrealgate". This individual points that he mentions below does not matter. Russiagate was a carefully planned and
brilliantly executed false flag operation run by intelligences
agencies (with GB agencies playing an important in some episodes decisive role) and headed probably by Obama himself via Brennan. There
were two goals: (1) to exclude any possibility of detente with Russia and (2) to block any Trump attempts to change the USA foreign
policy including running foreign war that enrich Pentagon contractors and justify supersized budget for intelligence agencies. As such
is was a great success.
The fact that no American was indicted and that Mueller attempt to prosecute Russian marketing agneces failed does not matter. The
atmosphere is now posoned for a generation. Americans are brainwashed and residue of Russiagate will stay for a long, long time. Neocons
Bolton and Pompeo now run Trump administration foreign policy with Trump performing most ceremonial role in foreign policy domain.
In this sense Skripals poisoning was another false flag operation, which was the logical continuation of Russiagate. And Magnitsky
killing (with Browder now a primary suspect) was a precursor to it. Both were run from Great Britain.
It is actually interesting how Mueller report swiped under the carpet the role of Great Britain in unleashing the Russiagate hysteria.
Two important foreign forces in the 2016 US Presidential elections was the Israel lobby and Great Britain. Trump proved to be a
marionette not of Russia but of Israeli lobby. so sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later). ..."
For more than two years, leading US political and media voices promoted a narrative that Donald Trump conspired with or was compromised
by the Kremlin, and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove it. In the process, they overlooked countervailing evidence and
diverted anti-Trump energies into fervent speculation and prolonged anticipation. So long as Mueller was on the case, it was possible
to believe that " The Walls Are Closing In " on the
traitor /
puppet / asset in the
White House
.
The long-awaited completion of Mueller's probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative -- and the expectations
it fueled -- to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller's report
does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but it declines to issue a verdict on obstruction.
It presents no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with an alleged effort by the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton,
and instead renders this conclusion: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired
with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." As a result, Mueller's report provides the opposite of what
Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what
amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.
1. Russiagate Without Russia
The most fundamental element of a conspiracy is contact between the two parties doing the conspiring. Hence, on the eve of the
report's release, The New York
Times noted that among the "outstanding questions" that Mueller would answer were the nature of "contacts between Kremlin
intermediaries and the Trump campaign."
Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence
that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian
ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen
began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful
Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect."
If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with,
perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
To borrow a phrase from Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, when it comes to the core question of contacts between
Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a "Russiagate without Russia." Instead we have a series of interactions where
Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to
the Russian government. But none of these "links," "ties," or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting
with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track
every
known instance in which someone in Trump's orbit
interacted with " the Russians ," or
someone who can be linked
to them . There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national -- but there is something xenophobic
about implying as much.
2. Russiagate's Predicate Led Nowhere
The most glaring absence of a Kremlin intermediary comes in the case that ostensibly prompted the entire Trump-Russia investigation.
During an April 2016 meeting in Rome, a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud reportedly informed Trump campaign aide George
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. That information made its
way to the FBI, which used it as a pretext to open the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe on July 31, 2016. Papadopoulos was later indicted
for lying to FBI agents about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud. The case stoked speculation that Papadopoulos acted as an
intermediary between
Trump and Russia
.
But Papadopoulos played no such role. And while the Mueller report says that Papadopoulos "understood Mifsud to have substantial
connections to high-level Russian government officials," it never asserts that Mifsud actuall y had those connections.
Since Mifsud's suspected Russian connections were the purported predicate for the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, that
is a conspicuous non-call. Another is the revelation from Mueller that
Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators
when they interviewed him in February 2017 -- but yet, unlike Papadopoulos, Mifsud was not indicted. Thus, even the interaction that
sparked the Russia-collusion probe did not reveal collusion.
3. Sergey Kislyak Had "Brief and Non-Substantive" Interactions With the Trump Camp
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations with Trump campaign officials and associates during and after the 2016 election
were the focus of intense controversy and speculation, leading to the recusal of
Jeff Sessions, then attorney
general, and to the indictment of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
After an exhaustive review, Mueller concluded that Kislyak's interactions with Trump campaign officials at public events "were
brief, public, and non-substantive." As for Kislyak's
much –
ballyhooed meeting which Sessions in September 2016, Mueller saw no reason to dispute that it "included any more than a passing
mention of the presidential campaign." When Kislyak spoke with other Trump aides after the August 2016 Republican National Convention,
Mueller "did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
The same goes for Kislyak's post-election conversations with Flynn. Mueller indicted Flynn for making "false statements and omissions"
in an interview with the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. The prevailing supposition was
that Flynn lied in order to hide from the FBI an
election-related payoff or "
quid pro quo
" with the Kremlin. The report punctures that thesis by reaffirming the facts in Flynn's indictment: What Flynn hid from agents
was that he had "called Kislyak to request Russian restraint" in response to sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration,
and that Kislyak had agreed. Mueller ruled out the possibility that Flynn could have implicated Trump in anything criminal by noting
the absence of evidence that Flynn "possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive
to end the FBI's inquiry into Flynn's conduct."
4. Trump Tower Moscow Had No Help From Moscow
The November 2018 indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely seen as damning, possibly impeachment-worthy,
for Trump. Cohen admitted to giving false written answers to Congress in a bid to downplay Trump's personal knowledge of his company's
failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. To proponents of the collusion theory, Cohen's admitted lies were proof that "
Trump is compromised by
Russia ," " full stop ."
But the Mueller report does not show any such compromise, and, in fact, shows there to be no Trump-Kremlin relationship. Cohen,
the report notes, "requested [Kremlin] assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with
financing." The request was evidently rejected. Elena Poliakova, the personal assistant to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov,
spoke with Cohen by phone after he e-mailed her office for help. After their 20-minute call, the report says, "Cohen could not recall
any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office
identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
5. and Trump Didn't Ask Cohen to Lie About It
The Mueller report not only dispels the notion that Trump had secret dealings with the Kremlin over Trump Tower Moscow; it also
rejects a related impeachment-level "bombshell." In January, BuzzFeed News
reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump "directed" Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project. But according to
Mueller, "the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony," and that
Cohen himself testified "that he and the President did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow
project would be or was false." In a de-facto retraction, BuzzFeed updated its story with an
acknowledgment
of Mueller's conclusion .
6. The Trump Tower Meeting Really Was Just a "Waste of Time"
The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was
widely
dubbed
the
" Smoking
Gun ." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part
of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead
from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure
the meeting, because in reality,
as he told NPR , "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist
candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]."
The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste
of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional
efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."
7. Manafort Did Not Share Polling Data to Meddle in the US Election
In January, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators about several matters, including sharing Trump polling data and
discussing a Ukraine peace plan with a Ukrainian-Russian colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 campaign. According to Mueller,
the FBI "assesses" that Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." To collusion proponents, the revelation was dubbed
" the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual
collusion " and even the "
Russian collusion smoking gun ."
Mueller, of course, reached a different conclusion: He "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling
data and Russia's interference in the election," and, moreover, "did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian
government on its election-interference efforts." Mueller noted that he "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing"
the polling data, but also acknowledged (and bolstered) the explanation of his star witness, Rick Gates, that Manafort was motivated
by proving his financial value to former and future clients.
Mueller also gave us new reasons to doubt the assertions that Kilimnik himself is a Russian intelligence asset or spy. First,
Mueller did not join
media pundits in asserting such about
Kilimnik. Second, to support his vague contention that Kilimnik has, according to the FBI, "ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller
offered up a list of " pieces of the Office's
Evidence" that contains no direct evidence. For his part, Kilimnik has repeatedly stated that he has no such ties, and recently
told The Washington Post that Mueller never attempted to interview him.
8. The Steele Dossier Was Fiction
The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia
criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in
its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent
politicians ,
pundits , and
media
outlets promoted it as
credible .
The Mueller report,
The New York Times
noted last week , has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared
to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent
stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing
the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other
individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the
Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy
reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later
denied the claim under oath, and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague."
After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform
that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that"
the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
9. The Trump Campaign Had No Secret Channel to WikiLeaks
In January, veteran Republican operative and conspiracy theorist Roger Stone caused a stir when he was indicted for lying to Congress
about his efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks. But Mueller's indictment actually showed that Stone
had no communications with WikiLeaks
before the election and no privileged information about its releases . Most significantly, it revealed that Trump officials were
trying to learn about the WikiLeaks releases through Stone -- a fact that underscored that the Trump campaign neither worked with
WikiLeaks nor had advance knowledge of its e-mail dumps.
Mueller's final report does nothing to alter that picture. Its sections on Stone are heavily redacted, owing to Stone's pending
trial. But they do make clear that Mueller conducted an extensive search to establish a tie between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign,
and Stone -- and came up empty. New
reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far their farcical efforts went. The Mueller team devoted
time and energy to determine whether far-right conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the false claim that Barack
Obama was born outside the United States, served as a link between Stone and WikiLeaks. Mueller's prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing,
cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories," the Post
reports. "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself." It is unsurprising that this led Mueller's prosecutors to
ultimately declare, according to Corsi's attorney, "We can't use any of this."
10. There Was No Cover-Up
The Mueller report does not just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years;
it puts to rest the most popular, recent one: that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a
cover-up . According to the dominant narrative, Barr was
somehow concealing Mueller's damning evidence
, while Mueller, even more improbably, stayed silent.
One could argue that Barr's summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller's report does
"not exonerate" Trump. It was Mueller's decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees,
it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller's office assisted with Barr's redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged,
extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the
report's contents.
In the end, Mueller's report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and
media establishments to be a work of
fiction . The American public
was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the
countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated
claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.
It is too early to assess the damage that influential Russiagate promoters have done to their own reputations; to public confidence
in our democratic system and media; and to the prospects of defeating Trump, who always stood to benefit if the all-consuming conspiracy
theory ultimately collapsed. The scale of the wreckage, confirmed by Mueller's report, may prove to be the ultimate Russiagate scandal.
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.
Parachuting Harvard mafia on Russia was a more powerful weapon and led to more destruction of Russian economy then direct
bombardment would
Notable quotes:
"... Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now it remains to carp about their "bad behavior". ..."
I think that at least some weapon systems that USA makes or develops can be indeed
superior. The most acute loss from the approach of "invest in over-extending and un-balancing
the opponent" is that USA, while powerful, cannot do everything in the same time.
My favorite comparison chart is timeliness of subway systems in major metropolitan areas.
Honestly, I cannot find it, because the search is swamped with the tales of woe of subway
commuters in NYC. As befits the greatest financial center, cultural metropolis etc. etc., NYC
has a transportation system that is comparable in its extend to other metropolitan areas like
Tokyo, Paris or London. However, the performance is uninspiring. On the chart in NYT that I
can't find out at the moment, only Mexico City had a lower percentage of train rides delayed
by less than 10 minutes. I checked Moscow that has a larger subway system (compared to NY)
and which was not on the chart. They pride themselves with frequency of delays that is 5
times smaller than in Paris (50 times smaller than in NYC?). Moscovites can actually plan
their daily lives assuming that their commutes will arrive on time.
This is the most glaring example of a lost opportunity to take care of domestic needs, but
the quality of education, healthcare etc. is mediocre compared with the rest of OECD,
although there is always the southern neighbor that saves USA from being dead last.
Incidentally, NYC subway is not exactly underfunded, instead, it may have the most
irrational management among major metropolitan areas which accurately reflects deficiencies
of American political system. Bloated costs are pervasive across many areas, surely in
military, healthcare and broadly meant policing, and their originate in lobbo-cracy, a
plethora of lobbies grabbing chunks of monies either directly spent or (mis)regulated by the
government. The activity of these lobbies is tightly regulated by elaborate rules, but the
end effect is as if USA were pathetically corrupted (say, half as corrupted as Nigeria).
Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the
most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of
Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle
in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now
it remains to carp about their "bad behavior".
Sanctions are also powerful when directed at small/medium size economies. Russia, although
disparaged as "a smaller economy than Italy", but in actuality, Italy has "GDP per capity
PPP" that is 40% larger than Russia, and Russia has 2.4 times larger population, so quite a
bit larger economy in terms of "purchasing parity", and the most glaring domestic production
deficiency are fruit and vegetables that, according to latest news, have a number of
potential suppliers that are most glad when they can sell their produce.
For
decades, Washington's favourite means of punishing nations that do not subscribe to its
narrative has been through the imposition of economic sanctions. This has become particularly
apparent with the ongoing and increasing sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea. While
sanctions against these governments have garnered headlines for the past few years, in fact,
there are far more sanctions that we rarely hear about.
In 1950, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control was formed as part of the United States Department of the Treasury. OFAC
administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions that are based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals. Sanctions have been imposed for the following reasons:
1.) terrorism
2.) international narcotics trade
3.) proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
4.) threats to national security, foreign policy and/or economy of the United States
Economic sanctions, in their most basic form, are defined as the withdrawal of trade and
financial relations with a targeted nation for foreign and security policy purposes. Economic
sanctions can take many forms including freezing of assets, arms embargoes, trade restrictions
and bans, capital restraints, foreign aid reductions and travel bans. According to the Council on
Foreign Relations , the United States uses economic and financial sanctions more than any
other nation.
In the United States, sanctions can originate in either the Executive or Legislative branches
of government. Presidents begin the process by issuing an Executive Order or EO which affords
the president social powers to regulate commerce with a given entity. Under the EO, the
president declares that there is a national emergency in response to "unusual and
extraordinary" foreign threats, for instance, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States. In addition to Executive actions,
Congress can also pass legislation to both modify and impose sanctions. Most sanctions programs
are administered by the previously mentioned OFAC, however, other government departments may be
involved including Homeland Security, Justice, State and Commerce.
On the OFAC website interested parties can search for information on federally mandated
sanctions programs. Under each sanctions program there is an exhaustive listing of changes to
the programs, guidelines that must be followed under penalty of law. There is also a listing of
"General Licences" which are issued in order to authorize activities that would otherwise be
prohibited under law. Here is a
list from OFAC showing active sanctions programs and the date of their last update:
OFAC also tracks " Specially
Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Individuals ". This list contains the names of
individuals and companies that are owned, controlled by or acting on behalf of targeted nations
as well as the names of terrorists and narcotics traffickers that are not affiliated with any
nation. The assets of these SDNs are blocked and American citizens and permanent residents are
prohibited from doing business with them. Here is a very small sampling of SDNs from the PDF
version of the complete listing:
In total, there are 1157 pages listing the names of over 6000 SDNs and blocked individuals.
Here is a specific person showing how difficult it is to ensure that you are not dealing with a
SDN with an unknown number of aliases:
In this case, the SDGT following his name indicates that he is sanctioned under the Global
Terrorism Sanctions Regulations.
OFAC can impose civil penalties on individuals and organizations that act in contradiction to
the imposed sanctions. So far in 2018, there have been two penalties imposed as shown
here
for doing business with Iran:
...and here for doing business with Sudan:
During 2017 , 16 OFAC
Enforcement Actions resulted in penalties of $119,527,845, up substantially from penalties
totalling $21,609,315 in 2016.
Let's now look at the sanctions programs that are currently in place from the Council on
Foreign Relations. Here is a graphic showing the current U.S. sanctions programs and their year
of inception:
With this background on Washington's use of sanctions, let's look at what the World Economic
Forum (WEF) has to say about the effectiveness of
sanctions . The key factor in the effectiveness of sanctions is the size and capacity of
the nation being sanctioned and the power of the sanctioning nation or coalition. Applying
sanctions is a double-edged sword; for instance, in the case of Iran, China and Russia have
stepped in to develop Iran's massive natural gas reserves whereas American oil companies are
banned from investing and profiting from their potential investments in Iran. There are also
longer term impacts of sanctions as show in this quote from the WEF:
" The consequences of this trend are evolving, but they potentially include companies'
"de-globalization". That is, as companies are increasingly forced to think of themselves as
tied to their home governments, they will think twice before investing in certain markets
abroad. Other consequences include changes in traditional foreign trade patterns in line with
new geopolitical alignments. Faced in 2006 with the Russian wine embargo, Georgia had to
look for new markets in the West, where it was headed politically. When in 2014 Russia faced
Western sanctions, it accelerated its rapprochement with China, the one major power that
refused to condemn its actions and shared Moscow's opposition to US global dominance. The outcome of these geo-economic campaigns is not a zero-sum game. The stronger economy
backed by other forms of power can incur more damage on the target country than it will sustain
in return, but it does not always alter the political behaviour of the government to be
"punished". Sometimes sanctions can make that behaviour even more problematic. Ironically,
the true winner may be a third party that jumps into the opening: European countries in the
initial phases of US-Iran sanctions; China in the case of current Western sanctions against
Russia; Russia in the case of the post-Tiananmen Western weapons ban on China; Turkey in the
situation when EU pressure made Russia abandon its South Stream gas pipeline project. " (my
bolds)
In many cases (i.e. Iran, Syria and North Korea), the ultimate desired impact of sanctions is
to create an atmosphere where the targeted government is subjected to "regime change". As well,
sanctions are generally less effective against nations that are adversaries since the sanctions
may create a political climate where there is a stiffening of resolve of the people being
punished by an outside power. We need look no further than the example of Vladimir Putin who,
despite nearly five years of sanctions, still retains the backing of the majority of Russians
as shown here :
One would think that Washington would have concluded that economic sanctions have not
necessarily proven to be an effective means of getting its way in the world and, in fact, may
have punished domestic businesses more than they punished foreign adversaries. The lessons
taught by nearly 70 years of American economic isolation against Cuba are a prime example;
while the sanctions have been painful, they resulted in a nation that has maintained its
resolve in the face of economic difficulties and a leader that outlived and out ruled the
reigns of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton and Bush II.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019US Power
Wielding - Unconventional Warfare and Financial Power Back in December 2008, WikiLeaks
released a relatively little-noted document "
US Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare ". This 248-page, nine chapter
publication was the September 2008 revision of the U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.130, the
keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces operations in unconventional warfare.
This document defines unconventional warfare as:
" Operations conducted by, with or through irregular forces against a variety of state and
no-state opponents. "
These operations are conducted:
" ...in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, and ongoing or pending conventional
military operations "
Such operations have the following common conceptual core:
". ..working by, with, or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner
against opposing actors. "
In Chapter 2, the document outlines the instruments of United States national power which help
the United States to achieve its national strategic objectives. These instruments of national
power include diplomacy, information, intelligence, economic, financial, law enforcement and
military. For the purposes of this posting, let's focus on one of these instruments as follows,
the Financial Instrument of National Power . Here's how the document describes this
instrument:
" The financial instrument of national power promotes the conditions for prosperity and
stability in the United States and encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the
world. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the primary federal agency responsible
for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States and as such is
responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the President on economic and
financial issues, promoting the President's growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance
in financial institutions. In the international arena, the Treasury works with other federal
agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to
encourage economic growth; raise standards of living; and predict and prevent, to the extent
possible, economic and financial crises." I like that " encourages
prosperity and stability intherest of the world ". That is true, unless you
happen to live in a nation which doesn't share Washington's viewpoint. Just ask people living
in one of many nations who are currently subject to one or another of Washington's long list of
sanctions as shown here (current to
mid-2017):
The document proceeds to note the following:
" T he application of economic or financial incentives is among the most powerful ideas
in the U.S. arsenal of power. Although some U.S. adversaries are irreconcilable to
accommodation with U.S. interests and must be engaged in other ways, many declared or
potential adversaries can be persuaded or dissuaded by economic or financial means to become
declared or potential allies (or at least neutralized) the ability of the United States
government to affect the economic environment is enormous, and it has economic weapons at its
disposal. Unconventional warfare planners must carefully coordinate the introduction and
withholding of economic and financial assets into the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area
(UWOA) with their interagency partners. For example, direct application of USAID grants to
specific human groups can alter negative behaviors or cement positive affiliations. At the
highest levels of diplomatic and financial interaction, the United States Government's ability
to influence international financial institutions -- with corresponding effects to exchange
rates, interest rates, credit availability, and money supplies -- can cement multinational
coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade adversary nation-state governments
from supporting specific actors in the UWOA. " (my bolds)
As you can see, the United States is willing to use financial blackmail including exchange and
interest rate manipulation, credit availability and the supply of money to either persuade
certain nations to join its unconventional warfare campaign or to dissuade adversarial nations
from supporting the "other side" of an unconventional warfare strategy.
Here is a screen capture of page 2-8 of the document outlining how the United States can use
financial incentives to manipulate other nations (ARSOF = Army Special Operations Forces and UW
= Unconventional Warfare, DOS = Department of State, IC = Intelligence Community):
Note this sentence:
" Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive
influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms
of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors
."
It is also interesting to note that the document clearly states that the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Bank for
International Settlements are basically functioning as organizations that Washington can use to
drive its global agenda and as yet another tool in America's quest for global hegemony. This
isn't terribly surprising in the case of the World Bank since we find the following on its
website:
In addition, the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control whose sole responsibility is as follows:
". ..to administer and enforce economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists,
international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and other threats the national security... "
...has a " long history of conducting economic warfare valuation to any Army Special
Operations Forces unconventional warfare. ".
This Army manual, leaked over a decade ago by WikiLeaks, gives us a very clear view of how
Washington uses financial manipulation through its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and
other "global" groups to wage unconventional warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view
of how the world should function and that threatens America's control of the globe. The use of
financial blackmail to bend countries to America's narrative and overthrow nations who do not
succumb to America's wishes is not terribly surprising, however, it is interesting to actually
see one key aspect of Washington's unconventional warfare methodology in print.
"... Skripal was just one more effort to tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State. ..."
"... The significance of the NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do for itself. ..."
Craig Murray has a piece on this today. There is nothing very new in what he writes but he
sees the significance of this story, which is not about ducks or children or Donald Trump's
personality but a concerted and thorough campaign, carried out largely by British state
actors, to deepen the 'west's' isolation of Russia.
The real story of both the Cold War and the continually recurring propaganda stories about
the "millions" of "victims of communism" is that the Soviet Union was manipulated throughout
its history by capitalist control over the international economy. Like a demonic organist
capitalist governments pulled out all the stops to control the moods and the policies of a
state that the Bolsheviks never did get to rule.
In the end the Politburo gave in and did what the 'west' had always been wanted which is
to hand over the country, lock, stock and population to the cannibals of capital.
The result being what was probably, after the 1930-45 war, the largest kill off of
Russians in modern history: Yeltsin plus Harvard Business School being responsible for many
more deaths than even the intoxicated propagandist Robert Conquest ever dreamed of.
It is that total control over Russia, through the manipulation of its economy, and the
direction of its capitalists, that is behind the long series of sanctions, which are being
added to every day: their purpose is to re-invent Yeltsinism, re-empower the Fifth Column in
the Kremlin, and, in a stroke, re-establish the inevitable and eternal hegemony of the
Washington centered Empire.
In this work the assistance of the 'cousins'in MI6 and GCHQ, plus the entire British
military establishment has been crucial in a period in which the subservience of POTUS to the
Deep State was, thanks to the underestimation of his electoral chances, very much in
question. During a period in which Trump had to be tamed and brought under control the UK
Establishment's assistance in coming up with a series of highly publicised interventions was
crucia l.
Lysias points out that Haspel had acted as the CIA's Head of Station in London in 2016. It
was in London that the entire "Russiagate" nonsense was put together, with British based
actors continually prodding Congress, the media and the Democrats to act on revelations
regarding Papadopolous, Mifsud, Stefan Halper.
Skripal was just one more effort to
tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from
foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State.The significance of the
NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of
Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living
off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do
for itself.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
Tough talk about the need to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election is running into the reality that
Congress's enthusiasm for additional sanctions is waning.
"We face a little bit of sanctions fatigue around here these days," said Republican Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, the sponsor of one of the bills aimed at Russia. "Hopefully we'll get more people on board."
Two main proposals are circulating aimed at increasing pressure on Russian individuals and companies by
restricting their access to U.S. markets and capital. Both Senate bills received significant attention in 2018
after President Donald Trump failed to condemn Russia for its election meddling, but they lost steam after
November's midterm elections and aren't moving any faster in this year's Congress.
Many lawmakers still want Russia to face stronger consequences for its actions in the U.S. and elsewhere, but
there's no clear consensus on how to send the right message to the Kremlin. Two other factors add to the
hesitation: concern about unintended
economic
consequences, and the difficulty of passing legislation in a divided Congress when the measures don't
have the president's support.
"Sanctions can often be a double-edged sword," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chairman of
the Homeland Security Committee. "So we really should take a little bit of a step back and assess where we are and
what we can really do."
Sovereign Debt
Markets are closely watching the next U.S. moves on sanctions, since any action may
affect
Russia's sovereign debt. The ruble has depreciated against the dollar since 2014, when the U.S. imposed
sanctions on during the Obama administration.
Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, in February
reintroduced their
DASKA Act
, which would impose sanctions on Russian individuals, cyber operations and liquid natural gas export
facilities. The legislation calls for the president to "
prescribe
regulations
" for sanctions on sovereign debt issued 90 days after the law is enacted. The bill would also
reinforce support for NATO, and would create a new office in the State Department to respond to cyber threats.
The other Senate bill, the
DETER Act
, was reintroduced last week by Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It would
require the Director of National Intelligence to tell Congress on any foreign interference within 60 days of a
federal election. If a Russian violation is found, sanctions would target that country's political figures and its
energy and defense sectors. Sanctions could also extend to government and state-owned company bonds issued after
the bill is signed into law.
Van Hollen said the current version of his bill includes an
option
for the president to waive sanctions in the interest of "national security." Senators considered adding
this provision in 2018 as an escape valve that would improve its chances of getting a floor vote, after the
Treasury Department
warned of
potential economic spillover.
Previous versions of both bills failed to advance at the end of 2018 as Congress turned its focus to government
spending measures, judicial nominations and a farm bill.
Van Hollen said the new version would deter Russian misbehavior because it would punish future action.
"We're not talking about adding new sanctions now, we're sending a clear signal that if you screw around in our
elections again, there's going to be swift and severe punishment," he said. "It makes much more sense to tie a
sanction to future conduct to deter the conduct."
The U.S. has
sanctioned
roughly 700 Russian entities since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and fostered unrest in eastern
Ukraine. Other sanctions were imposed
following
the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the
poisoning
of a former Russian agent and his daughter in the U.K. in March 2018.
Lawmakers last year stepped up the push for legislation compelling new sanctions after Trump sparked bipartisan
outcry
when he stood beside Russian President Vladimir Putin following a one-on-one summit in Helsinki and
said he believed Putin's denial of Russia interference in U.S. elections.
Mueller Momentum
While senior lawmakers now express mixed feelings about what to do next, the upcoming release of portions of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the 2016 election and the Trump campaign could bring renewed
attention to the sanctions bills.
"You'll see more interest in this from other members who may not have been as involved when they can see the
full Mueller report," said Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee.
Some key lawmakers are taking their time, though, as they try to decide the best next steps. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, said he isn't backing any particular proposal at this
time.
'It's Getting Worse'
"The purpose is to persuade people to adjust their conduct, and it's not happening," Risch said. "In fact, if
anything it's getting worse. That's what is causing the discussion."
Risch said he couldn't "really judge what the appetite is" in the Senate for more sanctions, but he'd like to
see a strong stance from the U.S. "I'm interested in seeing Russia change their conduct," he said. "And the
Russian administration, they're not nice people. They do bad things."
Jim Risch
Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat on Risch's committee, said Congress's willingness to
further punish Russia will also hinge on that country's participation in other conflicts around the world.
"We're seeing their activities in Venezuela," Shaheen said of Russia's support for the faltering Nicolas Maduro
regime
that the U.S. has sought to transition out of power. "If we see those kinds of activities continue,
that there will be a growing appetite for additional sanctions."
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat also on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress should be
thinking "a little more creatively about how to make Russia pay a price." Murphy said the focus should be on how
to address underlying geopolitical problems, rather than focusing on isolated punitive measures.
"We could spend our time talking about actual long-term strategies to try to combat Russia's influence, or we
could spend all our time slapping sanctions on Russian individuals and banks," Murphy said. "The former is
probably more important than the latter."
Russiagate is about keeping Russian down via additional sections. As simple as that. Epidemics of Neo-McCarthyism also
helps to cement cracks in the US neoliberal facade and, as such, is very helpful for the US elite.
It also absolves Neoliberal Democrats of the political fiasco of the century -- rejection of establishment candidate by
the majoring of working Americans which happened when Hillary Clinton was defeated by a person with zero political experience and no
political patty behind him.
Notable quotes:
"... "The results of Mueller's investigations are a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air. The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited. Only an idiot can believe them now." ..."
"... We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, made in an interview when he said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." ..."
"... To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many in the United States know nothing about our country. ..."
Alexey Pushkov, a former diplomat and a political analyst,
tweeted to his 360,000 followers on Tuesday
, following the release of Attorney General William Barr's summary of the report:
"The results of Mueller's investigations are
a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air.
The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited.
Only an idiot can believe them now."
To the Kremlin and its supporters, Russia is the aggrieved party here, and the government's consistent denials of interfering
in America's internal affairs have been fully vindicated. Appearing on the Russian talk show "60 Minutes," Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman
for the foreign ministry, said the ministry was preparing a report to name and shame the "brigade of propagandists" -- pointing at,
among others, Fareed Zakaria -- who tried to tie Mr. Trump to Russia. She added that "apologies are expected."
... ... ...
...it becomes clear that whatever the outcome of
the Mueller investigation, our relationship with America has changed.
We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence,
made in an interview when he
said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
... ... ...
In the atmosphere where "contacts with Russians" has become cause for suspicion, every bank transaction and visa application faces
extra scrutiny. I've heard from people I know about how exchange programs, conferences and businesses are suffering.
To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many
in the United States know nothing about our country. Ominous images of onion-shaped domes
taking over the
White House baffled us; St. Basil's Cathedral is not part of the Kremlin complex and has no political connotation. The ubiquity
of hammers and sickles in visuals accompanying Trump-Russia reports seemed likewise absurd. Our country hasn't been Communist for
about 30 years.
"... 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.
Hate of Russia national runs deep with the infected bowels of the State Department. Sounds
like Neo-cons saber rattling and wanting to start WWIII over a bunch of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis
installed thanks to Victoria Nuland.
So much for detente with Russia. Trump proved to be just a marionette of MIC...
Sentiments about Trump at Zerohedge noticeably deteriorates since 2016
The US State Department announced on Friday that it would be joining
the European Union and Canada to impose new sanctions against Russia in response to the
Kremlin's "continued aggression in Ukraine."
Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified November 25 attack
on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait."
Also sanctioned by the United States are eight companies, including six Russian defense
firms, "including shipbuilding companies; two individuals involved in the NOvember sham
"elections" in Russia-controlled eastern Ukraine; and two Russian energy and construction
companies operating in Crimea."
Read the State Department announcement below:
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) designated six Russian individuals and eight entities in response to Russia's
continued and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. Today's action targets individuals and entities
playing a role in Russia's unjustified attacks on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait,
the purported annexation of Crimea, and backing of illegitimate separatist government elections
in eastern Ukraine. These actions complement sanctions also taken today by the European Union
and Canada, and underscore the strength and commitment of the transatlantic partnership to
counter Russia's continued destabilizing behavior and malign activities.
"The United States and our transatlantic partners will not allow Russia's continued
aggression against Ukraine to go unchecked. This joint initiative with our partners in the
European Union and Canada reinforces our shared commitment to impose targeted and meaningful
sanctions in response to the Kremlin's attempts to disregard international norms and
undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Treasury Secretary Steven T.
Mnuchin. "The international community is strongly aligned against Russia's naval attacks in
the Kerch Straight, purported annexation of Crimea, and support for the illegitimate
separatist-conducted elections in eastern Ukraine."
OVERVIEW
Five years after its invasion of Ukraine and its attempted annexation of Crimea, Russia
continues to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity while failing to
implement its obligations under the Minsk agreements. On November 25, 2018, Russian authorities
opened fire on and rammed three Ukrainian ships off the coast of Crimea, seizing the ships and
capturing 24 Ukrainian crew members, who remain illegally detained in Russia. Russia also
continues its occupation of Crimea, and the Kremlin has also backed illegitimate elections held
by Ukrainian separatists in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic on November 11, 2018.
As a result of today's designations, all property and interests in property of the
designated individuals and entities are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from
transacting with them. Moreover, any entities owned 50 percent or more by these designated
persons are also blocked by operation of law.
Designations Related to Russia's Attack in the Kerch Strait
OFAC today sanctioned four Russian officials who were involved in the Kerch Strait attack.
OFAC designated Gennadiy Medvedev, the Deputy Director of the Border Guard Service of Russia's
Federal Security Service; Sergey Stankevich, the Head of the Border Directorate of Russia's
Federal Security Service; and Andrey Shein, the Deputy Head of the Border Directorate and Head
of the Coast Guard Unit of Russia's Federal Security Service. Medvedev and Stankevich directly
controlled and organized the attack against the Ukrainian ships and their crew, while Shein
participated in the operation against the seized Ukrainian ships and crew.
OFAC also designated Ruslan Romashkin, the Head of the Service Command Point of the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Medvedev, Stankevich, Shein, and Romashkin are being designated pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 13661 for being officials of the Government of the Russian Federation.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA
Today's action also targets six Russian defense firms with operations in Crimea, several of
which misappropriated Ukrainian state assets to provide services to the Russian military. Four
of these entities are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense and
related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy, and two entities are being
designated pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is a Russian state-owned shipbuilding plant that has built
vessels for Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is also the project developer for a naval vessel that was
completed at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is
being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense or related materiel sector
of the Russian Federation economy.
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant, named after A.M. Gorky, is one of the largest ship manufacturers
in Russia and has produced missile frigates and corvettes for the Russian Navy. The Zelenodolsk
Shipyard Plant has collaborated with Crimea-based enterprise Skloplastic, which was unlawfully
nationalized by the Russian government following its illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014. The
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Kontsern Okeanpribor (Okeanpribor) is a producer of hydroacoustic equipment and has
supplied components to the Russian Navy. Okeanpribor has also collaborated on a naval project
at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" was designated by
OFAC on September 1, 2016. Okeanpribor is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating
in the defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
PAO Zvezda (Zvezda) is a supplier of diesel engines to the Russian Navy. Zvezda has also
supplied components for Russian naval vessels that were being built at the Federal SUE Shipyard
"Morye" in Crimea. Zvezda is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Zavod Fiolent (Fiolent) is a Crimea-based electronics manufacturer that has supplied
parts for use in Russian military equipment. Fiolent was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Fiolent is being designated pursuant to
E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
GUP RK KTB Sudokompozit (Sudokompozit) is a Crimea-based producer of defense components that
are supplied for Russian military use. Sudokompozit was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Sudokompozit is being designated
pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
OFAC also designated the following two entities pursuant to E.O. 13685, due to their
activities in Crimea.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD, a limited liability company registered in the city of Simferopol,
Crimea, is one of Crimea's largest construction companies. LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is engaged
in the construction of residential and commercial real estate in cities throughout the Crimea
region including, among others, Feodosia, Kerch, Yalta, Simferopol, Sevastopol, and
Yepatoria.
LLC Novye Proekty is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine. In
2016, Russian authorities awarded the private company Novye Proekty an oil and gas exploration
license for the Crimean Black Sea shelf. The Crimean shelf is believed to be rich in
hydrocarbons and authorities in Ukraine have reported that Ukraine lost about 80 percent of its
oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea due to Russia's purported annexation of Crimea. Novye
Proekty's license permits geological studies, prospecting, and the extraction of raw
hydrocarbon materials from the Black Sea's Glubokaya block. Prior to Russia's purported
annexation of Crimea the Glubokaya block was estimated to hold reserves of 8.3 million tons of
crude and 1.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE
Today's action also targets two Ukrainian separatists who were involved in the organization
of the November 2018 illegitimate elections in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic. These
illegitimate elections clearly contradict Russia's commitments under the Minsk agreements, and
were strongly opposed by the United States and EU.
Aleksey Alekseevich Naydenko is the Deputy Chair of the Central Election Commission of the
so-called Donetsk People's Republic. Naydenko is being designated for being responsible for or
complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten
the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Vladimir Yurievich Vysotsky is the Secretary of Central Election Commission of the so-called
Donetsk People's Republic. Vysotsky is being designated for being responsible for or complicit
in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
View identifying information on the individuals designated today.
" DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA"
purported
/pərˈpôrdəd/
adjective
appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so; alleged.
There is nothing "purported" about it, it was true and as legitimate as it could possibly
be.
Then under "DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN
UKRAINE" they claim that Russia violated its committments under Minsk 2, which the US never
officially recognized. Minsk 2 intended increased sovereignty for the Oblasts under a new
Ukraine Federal constitutional arrangement. That constitutional amendment has never been
initiated by Kiev, with the blessing of Uncle Sam. It is the Ukraine puppet government who is
in violation of Minsk 2.
If the US wrote this, assume the opposite to be true.
[Article]: " Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified
November 25 attack on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait." "
Translation: "The propaganda lunacy will continue". "We will keep telling the same old
same old lies until people believe them".
My understanding of that incident is that the Ukrainian boats had some unexplained special
forces people on board and they refused to pull over when ordered to. From Russia's view,
there was a real risk of these people planning to plant explosives to blow up the Kerch
bridge.
Now it appears that no matter which government is in power they go along with the
aggressive agenda of the US.
Been like that since the '50's, just that you believed that the economy and world was
good.
Voting matters ZERO. The lie you are made to believe is that there is a choice when
voting, when in fact the ruling party is the financial engineers and bankers behind all
governments.
Voting is a waste of time. The heart of the beast is the USD reserve and the Rothschild
empire. Once we abolish that pig, all western governments implode under their own weight of
cheap talk and empty "policy".
The evidence that the orange swine is a Rothschild Trojan Horse is overwhelming at this
point. Only a scumbag or an absolute imbecile would fail to see it. Fvck you orange
roach.
I didn't read your comments at that time but I tip my hat to you. I realised that
everything he said during the campaign was bullsh!t after he started appointing Goldman Sachs
bankers to his cabinet...
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. " Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful place
where Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment.
I'm pretty sure not a single Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
You must be joking ! 70 per cent of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, and
six per cent don't even know when Independence Day falls. In a recent survey just over a half
of Americans didn't know what the Taliban are , despite the fact they led the charge in
Afghanistan.
When looking at a map of the world, young Americans had a difficult time correctly
identifying Iraq (1 in 7) and Afghanistan (17%). This isn't that surprising, but only a slim
majority (51%) knew where New York was. According to Forbes and National Geographic, an
alarming 29% couldn't point to the Pacific Ocean.
Many didn't know where Europe is let alone Spain.
Americans cultural ? What a hoot !
runner911 -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 04:09
Be assured Russia is more than capable of defending itself against Western ( USA )
aggression, plus they hold the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet , so lets be clear
no-one is going to attack Russia and risk nuclear annihilation in return. As regards being
surrounded by NATO, how do you think the yanks would react if the same were to apply to the
USA and that sad corrupt country was surrounded by Russian Forces ? The last time it happened
in 1962, as I recall the yanks were whining like whipped dogs, but eventually agreed to
dismantle their missiles in Turkey provided the Russians did the same in Cuba.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 5 Sep 2015 11:59
You lost the argument, so you are trying to change the subject. Now we can see why Western
media doesn't allow an open discussion - you don't have much to say.
East-central Europe was invaded by Germans, Russians, Ottomans, French, even the Swedes.
Germans murdered about 15 million people here. Ottomans (Turks) about 10 million. Russians
liberated us from a murderous German occupation after WWII and stayed way too long...
Russian victims are in tens of thousands. Given that Russians lost about 1.5 million
soldiers liberating us from Germans and saved us from planned extermination by Nazis over
time, we keep some perspective about it. But I am not sure your ideological and slogan-driven
thinking would understand any of it...
EugeneGur -> zenithmaster 5 Sep 2015 11:43
This has zero to do with Russia's poor relations with the EU and everything to do the
Russians' smaller spending power.
This is not quite true. You underestimate the power of the sentiment. One example:
Russian tourism to Estonia dropped 60% after the scandal with the Bronze soldier in 2007,
long before any decrease in the buying power, and it never recovered.
You are right, of course, that the decreased value of the ruble affected mass tourism,
but the effect was multiplied by the anger towards Europe, believe me, it was. Going through
the visa process was always annoying and humiliating but under the present circumstances it
became unbearable. This one thing that affects all European countries whether its Bulgaria or
Italy.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 09:56
Yeah, something like what thecorporateclass said above.
I'll add this: deep down even people like you don't believe in any Russian 'invasion'
in Ukraine. They know: if Russia did invade, it would've been over long time ago. The
question, rather, is about Kiev regime's control of the border, which would amount to a
blockade of Donetsk-Lugansk republics; blocking all the supplies, attacking from all
directions, and exterminating people who feel ethnically Russian.
This can not happen: it would've brought the Russian government down, and therefore no
Russian government could participate in it; be it led by Putin, Dugin, or Navalny, or anyone
at all. It's just a physical impossibility. IMO.
TheCorporateClass -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 06:37
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, Putin agrees to stop his military
interference in Ukraine.
This needs correcting IF it is to work as a solution.
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, agrees to stop it's interventions into
Ukrainian government and it's politics, agrees to stop FUNDING and GUIDING far right neo-nazi
militias and their political wings, agrees to stop making intentionally
false/unproven/fictional accusations against Russia & Putin's Government, stops providing
military intelligence to Ukraine (a non-Nato country), and admits to the direct connection
between the externally caused "political and social" instability in Ukraine begun by EU/NATA
and the externally caused "political and social" instability and then Civil War in Syria with
oil/gas supplies from Russia and Qatar ... then that would be a great first step towards the
truth of matters bullshit.
Then all of Russia and Putin at their ELECTED President would no doubt agree to stop his
humane military interference in Ukraine on behalf of those people having their human rights
and lives taken by ideologically driven psychopaths and their corrupt crazies from
Washington, Berlin, Riyadh, Doha, and Tel Aiv.
Simple really.
HollyOldDog -> raffine 5 Sep 2015 04:59
Whereas there are convoys of Russian trucks that are stopping the East Ukrainians of
starving to death. The only 'gifts' that West Ukraine gives to their East compatriates is
constant shelling, grad missile fire, mine fields and snipers that shoot any East Ukrainians
on sight whether they are men ,women or children.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 4 Sep 2015 23:48
I believe the western anti-missile installations along the Russian borders give the
impression that the US is trying to break the MAD balance and create, at some point in the
future, a defense against retaliatory nuclear strike. That seems like the only rational
explanation for those installations. For do you think they are for?
MaoChengJi -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 22:10
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. "
Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful pleace where Russians are
brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to invade them at any
moment.
I'm pretty sure not a signle Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
crackling -> MaoChengJi 4 Sep 2015 22:03
fingerprints is copying GWBush's data collection on citizens and visitors to the US - last
night I just had my photo and fingerprints taken on customs entry to Taiwan - I expect it's
becoming the norm these days.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 21:22
Address Obama's admission that "US assisted in the transition of power", why do you skip
over it? $15 billion was a loan and it was used for the Ukrainian budget. If someone stole
some of it, prove it and charge them.
I never said that Russians didn't try to influence Kiev, but so did US - listen to the
recording, it assigns roles for different protest leaders. Ashton was an EU official and she
was standing with the protestors - so were many others, incl. Nuland, ambassador, etc... -
that goes way beyond "trade agreement".
I am a Slovak and I comment on anything I feel like. If you have a problem with that,
maybe you don't understand democracy and freedom of speech. By the way, most people in my
part of Europe (from Budapest to Vienna to Prague) roughly share my view of the situation. We
know Russians, we know Ukrainians, and we can judge for ourselves.
Popeyes -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 19:45
It's very sad but Russians are for more aware of what's going on politically than their
Western counterparts. The fact that they have a low opinion of Westerners is hardly
surprising and they certainly don't have to be " brainwashed ' by the Kremlin to know what's
going on. They only have to look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Ukraine the list is endless to
figure it out. You could blame GM food for the fact that Americans seem to be pretty dim and
clueless on Europeans affairs, but as for the rest of Europeans I guess they are the ones
that are really "brainwashed".
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 19:32
Thou protest too much.
The "baroness" was an EU foreign secretary, that's pretty high up. In addition: US
ambassador, assistant sec for Europe (Nuland), and a number of other officials were at the
Maidan protests - videos and all.
The recording was very specific about who (Yats) should be Prime Minister and how it
should be done. If US also does that in Spain, that's even a bigger problem.
$5bn is a lot of "civil organizations" - most of it in the last 5-10 years. Russia gave a
loan - that is very different.
Finally, Obama literally said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine"
what other proof can one possible have than an admission by the chief?
By the way I used the term "assist in an overthrow". To "orchestrate" is more pro-active.
Given what has been made public there definitely was "assistance" (see Obama's statement
above), whether that amounts to "orchestrate" like in 1953 Iran, I would leave to the
historians.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:52
There are videos of dozens of Western leaders standing on the podium with the
demonstrators on Maidan (just imagine Lavrov joinig an Occupy protest in New York or
London).
There are recordings of Nuland deciding on who will run Ukraine ("f...k Europe").
US spent 5 billion in 20 years on "civil groups" in Ukraine.
If you prefer an infantile denial, I can't help you. Just don't be surprised if you become
irrelevant.
Beckow -> dmitryfrommoscow 4 Sep 2015 18:34
Yes it was always mostly about the visa-free access to EU. Ukrainians want to move to
Europe for jobs, benefits, school, etc... That was what drove Maidan energy (and US took
advantage of it).
But your numbers are off. There are about 1 million Ukrainians now in EU, mostly in UK,
Czech, Hungary and Poland. E.g. Poland has about 400,000 new Ukrainian migrants. The real
large numbers are yet to come. I think they will - they are watching the Syrians and getting
jealous, worried that all the empathy will be used up. Slovakia (my country) has camps ready
on the border. We also suddenly have a lot of Ukrainians who have discovered the Slovak (or
Czech) heritage. The same thing is going on in Poland, Romania and Hungary.
Millions are coming. And they won't be tourists or have money for Italian hotels. But I am
sure the Western media will find a way to blame it on Russia. Such are the pleasures of
dead-end ideologies, everything is very simple: "Putin did it!."
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:26
"US didn't orchestrate a coup in Ukraine and hasn't offered Kiev a military
alliance"
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "orchestrate" and a "coup". Most
rational observers would agree that US at a minimum assisted with the Maidan revolution (or a
coup). There are videos, recordings, financial transfers. Until the whole Maidan thing went
bad, the US State Department was very open about the assistance that they had provided on
Maidan, Obama said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine" (actual quote).
US has said since 2008 that Ukraine will join Nato. They reiterated it last year and
Ukraine has an official policy of joining Nato. There are joint exercises and training with
Nato. It is rather conclusive that US and Ukraine are having a "military alliance".
Given those two facts how can you deny it? Or do you also deny the nose between your
eyes?
magicmirror1 4 Sep 2015 18:11
Fingerprints to get a visa.
Welcome to democratic EU. This is the future European leaders are building and I cannot
understand why.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Ola Smith 4 Sep 2015 16:46
Ola, the problem is there are no 45 million people in Ukraine these days. As many as 2.8
million people with Ukrainian passports work and live in Russia alone. And I think twice as
many live and work in the EU. And about five to seven million are in a crouch start position
to rush elsewhere at the first opportunity that avails itself. After all the Maidan
hullabaloo was about getting free access to European -- and probably North American -- job
markets and disappearing there for good. Let's throw aside all that talk about 'democracy and
values' and be honest about it.
"... When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there. ..."
"... It wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal with those who are responsible for this. ..."
"... Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing. ..."
"... Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are. ..."
We are now saying that the world is changing and the interdependence of states is growing. Do you think international regulation,
for instance, in communications, can be radically improved in perspective? Because of fake news navigation in the sea of information
leaves much to be desired. Is it possible to regulate a host of other things related to migration flows and capital management?
Is it possible to raise international regulation to a new level or is this altogether impossible? Will countries continue to strike
unstable alliances for shorter or longer periods of time or are there grounds to hope for an improvement of this situation?
Sergey Lavrov:
This question is fairly controversial. In brief, currently this regulation that should be ideally based on universal principles
of international law is being replaced with narrowly interpreted rules elaborated in a narrow circle of states.
As for fake news, France, for example, adopted a law that filters the media space the way it wants. The Russian media Russia Today
and Sputnik are political outcasts. They are not allowed to visit the Elysee Palace or attend any special events. When we address
French officials in this context, they tell us that everything is correct because in their view these are propaganda instruments
rather than news agencies. This is what regulation is all about.
When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way
of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there.
There are other examples as well. When France failed to use the OPCW exclusively for passing remotely a verdict on who is guilty
and who is not in violation of all conceivable norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it took the initiative to establish an International
Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons that was not linked with any international structures. A few months
later the EU made a decision to the effect that if the new structure reveals violators, Brussels will impose sanctions on them. This
is, of course, regulation but this regulation is based on the narrow interpretation of broad interests by an individual group of
countries.
As for the internet, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been talking for years, if not decades, about the way
the internet should function so as to not offend anyone. No results have been produced and there will not be any in the foreseeable
future for obvious-to-all reasons. I have practically no doubts about this. Likewise, for the same reason virtually not a single
Western country supported our proposals that were endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the onset of work on the rules of responsible
conduct in cyberspace.
You mentioned migration. There is the Global Compact for Migration that was adopted last year. The West was fighting for it to
include a provision on the equal and divided responsibility for the migration crisis. Russia and other countries objected. It
wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms
traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal
with those who are responsible for this.
We are now talking about the formation of the multipolar international order. Its development was preceded by a whole historical
era.
Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating
itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at
some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing.
Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary
resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are.
Not those that established the UN in 1945 but those that are playing today, in the middle of the 21 st century. Only
after this we should think what to do next, for instance, with the UN. It is absolutely clear that the UN Security Council requires
a reform because the world's developing regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America are not properly represented in it. Today, up to
one third of the UN Security Council is represented by EU countries. I don't think that if more countries from the historical West
are added to this structure, it will gain the diversity we want to see in it.
Feb. 14, 2019 (EIRNS) -- Responding to the U.S. Senators' efforts to impose new sanctions on
Russia by proposing a bill on Feb. 13 called the "Defending American Security from Kremlin
Aggression Act (DASKA)" of 2019, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said behind such proposals
"there is an absolutely concrete, pragmatic and aggressive trading approach, having
nothing to do with international trade rules.... This policy sometimes borders on
racketeering. I mean various provisions of the draft law aimed at disrupting various energy
projects of Russian companies, undermining the activities of Russian banks with state
participation,"
Peskov said, reported TASS.
The proposed legislation, an updated version of an earlier bill that did not muster enough
support, seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Russia "in response
to Russia's interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and
aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait," said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who
proposed the bill with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among other members of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peña
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
Russia's PL-19 Nudol, a system U.S. military
intelligence assesses will be focused primarily on anti-satellite missions, was successfully
tested twice in 2018. The weapon, which was fired from a mobile launcher, was last tested on
Dec. 23 and marked the seventh overall test of the system, according to one of the people who
spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Russian anti-satellite weapon is expected to target communication and imagery satellites
in low Earth orbit, according to the other person, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
For reference, the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope travel in low
Earth orbit.
While anti-satellite missiles are by no means new, the latest revelation comes less than a
year after Putin touted his nation's growing military arsenal.
"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to
win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our
country's development: You have failed to contain Russia," Putin said during a national address
in March.
A recently unclassified report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, or
NASIC, explained how the U.S. advantage above the Earth's atmosphere is eroding to "an emergent
China and a resurgent Russia."
The NASIC report said there number of foreign intelligence and imaging satellites "has
tripled" to 300 in orbit in the last two decades. The U.S. itself has 353 of its own space
assets in orbit for those purposes. In response, military superpowers have poured funding into
researching and developing anti-satellite weapons.
Missiles are the most high-profile, physical manifestation of anti-satellite weapons. Frank
Slazer, the vice president of space systems at the Aerospace Industries Association, told CNBC
about how those missiles may be physically effective, but are likely not the "first line of
approach on this."
"You'd much rather jam the satellite, blind it [with a laser], or take over its control
systems with a cyberattack," Slazer said. "Kinetic impacts could cause problems for other
nations, besides the one you are attacking, and possibly for your own system's for many years
afterwards."
Both Slazer and the NASIC report pointed to the example of China's anti-satellite test in
2007. China fired an anti-satellite missile at one of its own, discarded weather satellites.
The test was successful, but the satellite shattered into thousands of pieces, which continue
to zip around in an orbital cloud of deadly debris.
"A huge percentage of the debris in low earth orbit is still attributable to that one test,"
Slazer said.
As far as the U.S. military's ability to defend against anti-satellite weapons, the assets
and capabilities in orbit "are the same as they have been for awhile," Tommy Sanford, director
of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, told CNBC.
Sanford contends that there has not been much in the way of progress when it comes to
defending U.S. space-based assets. Sanford gave the example of using networks of smaller and
cheaper satellites, like cubesats and nanosats, to offer "effective platforms to augment and
support missions carried out by the DoD's larger exquisite satellites."
"The idea behind a distributed architecture for space support is – instead of having
one exquisite target – you'd have a system which could presumably survive some loss of
its elements and still be able to provide function," Slazer said.
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message
to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to confiscate the
wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~ $10bn worth that
will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of Skripal and runaway
oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful enamourment with
England's climate, I don't know what will.
@Mike
P I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was
annamaria who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that
Russia wanted the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of
the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ¡Jebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
"So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious
threat."
Seen as a serious threat by some?
"Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic
weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and
innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An
inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy
that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the
defense budget and the tax load on American citizens."
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat." So it was, was it? That's really the
beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since
largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's
postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the
talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose
talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of
Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids -- ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
In response to proposed Senate legislation that would target Russia's state-controlled banks
by freezing their access to dollars -- a step which could genuinely damage the Russian economy
-- Moscow issued a new threat. "If we end up we end up with something like a ban on banking
activities or the use of certain currencies, we can clearly call this a declaration of economic
war," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
stated , emphasizing that Moscow would "respond to this war. By economic means, by
political means and if necessary by other means."
... ... ...
Putin doesn't even need to rely on his military to harm American interests either. He could
choose to openly increase economic and political support for North Korea, thereby weakening
Washington's ability to pressure North Korea to curtail its nuclear program. Given that North
Korea remains on the cusp of being able to reach the continental United States with a ballistic
missile this would constitute a significant setback for American interests.
... ... ...
To be clear, Medvedev's threats may be mere bluster, and Moscow could respond to dollar
sanctions by hunkering down even further and try to ride out the economic and political storm.
However, if harsh sanctions were on the verge of causing the Russian economy to collapse --
especially if this resulted in unrest which threatened the stability of the Putin regime --
Moscow might well end up lashing out in unpredictable ways. American policymakers should be
forewarned and prepared.
Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign
Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others.
There are so many painful places in the US foreign politics: North Korea, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America, North Africa, Yemen. All this weaknesses could be used
by the US foes and Russia knows it. I won't be surprised if Russia pushes this weakspots.
Yes, the US politicians have to be ready to aggresive and success reaction of Russia. And
they have to make an informed decisions. Very cautiously.
Can someone cite just one instance of American government imposing "sanctions" on a
foreign government where it actually worked to USA interests? Don't cite Iran, Trump scrapped
that deal - so much for negotiation with USA - think Boeing happy about all those lost
airplane orders?
"Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov" - really? Why the author did
not mention that Ukraine made 2(!) acts of piracy against Russian vessels before Russia
answered? Vessels "Nord" and "Mehanik Pogodin" are still seized by Ukraine against of law,
while Russia inspects vessels in INTERNAL waters of Azov according to law.
Because it is not popular opinion in US massmedia. Ukraine is always right, Russia is
always evil. Nobody want to pay you if you defend Russians. But if you will blame them in all
sins - you have a chance to recive few dollars from Dems or from military corporations.
If you have another opinion - you are russian troll.
Inspection of ships in the Azov Sea is carried out in accordance with the agreement on
economic activities in the Sea of Azov, Russia and Ukraine signed in 2012, Russia did not
inspect Ukrainian ships until 2018, but after threats to blow up the Crimean Bridge, Russia
began using the right to inspect all vessels in the Azov Sea seas
In the Ukraine there is a civil war, Russia's involvement in the poisoning of the "former
Russian spy" has not been proven by anyone, and the holy belief in "election meddling" looks
like a sign of idiocy.
I agree with you, too much lie. These american authors live in their own cloud castle
which has no relations with reality. Only money from military corporations who need
enemy.
Many inconsistencies and blatant lies on this article, but I wish to focus on this
particular one.
The author claims "Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov that could
serve as a pretext for a significant Russian military escalation in the region -- a step
right out of Moscow's 2008 playbook for its war in Georgia."
The 2008 South Ossetia war has been internationally recognized to be instigated by Georgia
itself (even the official EU report on the subject admitted this clearly). In what way did
Russia provoke the Georgian attack according to the author?
What evidence can he present to support this thesis? Or is he merely lying out of his
teeth?
Russia has attacked many countries, including Afghanistan in 1979 and Ukraine in 2014.
Luckily your terrorist colleague Zakharchenko has been dealt with.
Russia never attacked Ukraine. This propaganda bullshit lives only in someones damaged
brains and on papers of some mass media.
Zakharcheko never made any terror act. He defended his people from Ukraine nazis, who shelled
civil homes, kindergardens and schools from all possible guns. He never harmed any civil
human being. Vice versa - Kiev's bandits shell civil citizens of Donbass every day. There is
"Alley of angels" in Donetsk - the cemetry of kids killed by Kiev's terrorists.
In 1979 USSR entered Afghanistan by REQUEST OF LEGAL GOVERNEMENT of Afganistan. Because US
sponsored and supplied with weapons antigovernment bandits in Afgahnistan. CIA never hided
this. And waht do US do today in Syria? Who asked them to kill people and government forces
in Syria? And why did US sponsored putch in Kiev in 2014?
Sanctions may have knocked as much as 6 percent off Russia's economy over the past four
years and the drag isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
A new study by Bloomberg Economics has found that the economy of the world's biggest
energy exporter is more than 10 percent smaller compared with what might have been expected
at the end of 2013, before the Crimea crisis triggered wave after wave of restrictions by the
U.S. and EU. While some of the blame falls on the slump in oil prices, sanctions are the
bigger culprit .
"The underperformance has been much bigger than crude alone can explain," wrote Scott
Johnson, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics in London. "Part of the gap is likely to
reflect the enduring impact of sanctions both imposed and threatened over the last five
years."..
They admit that part of the 6 percent gap could be attributed to other shocks, such as
the introduction of inflation targeting and a sell-off in emerging markets
####
More anal-cysts at the link & my extra emphasis not to mention more
qualifiers in the article too boot.
Timely 'proof' that USA still runs the world and can punish people? Hardly a surprise but
they could have also pointed to not so great EU economic performance and its effect, but what
would be the point in that? Is it a) keep the sanction up and Russia will collapse/change its
foreign policy etc.? b) no need for more far reaching sanctions that could lead to Boeing/ULA
being stranded etc.? c) filler and fluff? d) Bloomturd shilling for business after their
Supermicro debacle?
Again, what's the point? What's it trying to prove?
If anything, de-dollarization and accelerating ties with the growing Asia-Pacific region
is very good for Russia, even if there is some initial short term pain inflicted by others.
If I do have a problem with Russia, it is that it seems to be cautious and then reactionary
by nature – or is this more institutionally safe behavior?
I smell GDP growth shenanigans at GKS. Hellevig had a piece earlier that debunked the claim
of a 1.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 and estimated that it was closer to 6%. He
was a bit too optimistic but the point is that 1.5% annual GDP growth (roughly 6%/4years) is
falling through the cracks and likely deliberately.
I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence. The CIA was not doing
a good job estimating the Russian GDP, so Putin could fake the numbers and NATzO
triumphalists would lap them up with glee. I think this policy was smart and actually worked.
That is why in 2014 Obama was certain the Russia's economy would collapse from the sanctions.
Read the articles in the NATzO MSM from 2014 and even through 2017 which assumed that massive
damage to Russia's economy was a given.
By keeping NATzO ignorant of Russia's actual potential, it could re-arm and regroup in
peace. I think it would have been bad for Russia if the events of 2014 happened in 2004. In
2004, the Russian defense industry physical plant was still in sad shape and collapsing. This
condition was basically rectified by 2014. And Russia was also able to deploy its new
hypersonic wunderwaffen. Anyone who thinks such machinations are tin foil hat nonsense does
not know the history leading up to WWII. The USSR managed to delay the attack of the Nazis by
2 years which allowed it to increase its military potential by 40% and to move defense
factories to the Urals.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not. This is ***physically*** apparent in Russia as import substitution
occurs on a massive scale. Since every dollar imports saved amounts to two dollars of
domestic production (one for local production and one for not exporting the dollar and
incurring a negative GDP accounting penalty) Russia's GDP growth should be over 4%. But you
would think that nothing was happening in terms of import substitution and that Russia's
economy was running cool and near recession. The employment statistics show that this is not
the reality. If the economy was near stagnation, the unemployment rate would go up. Low
unemployment occurs when the economy runs hot.
The way that Russia's GDP statistics are skewed is through the official CPI and PPI.
Nabiullina at the CBR claims that Russia is has serious inflationary instability. That is why
the prime rate is over three times the actual CPI (7.5% vs 2.3%). I have posted before why
there is no evidence of 1970s style South American inflation in Russia given the extremely
short lived inflation spike after the late 2014 ruble forex devaluation; the spike was
force-damped and did not have any recurring peaks after the initial one. Under real
inflationary conditions a 7.5% prime rate would do didley squat and, in fact, there is no
magic prime rate that controls the inflation. If it is set too high, the inflation actually
increases. Also, if Russia's economy was running cool there would not be any need for a 7.5%
rate since it would push the economy into a recession. So reality indicates that Russia's
economy is actually running hot and this has some inflationary pressure but also means that
1.3% GDP growth numbers are BS.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not.
I suspect that he is not the only one. There's a whole host of other sanctions that the
West has studiously avoided putting on Russia because of the damage that would be done to
itself, not to mention that it would always like to have a few extra sanctions to dangle
publicly/privately or both at will.
Vis the Bloomturd report, do they expect someone to pay for it? When you click on the link
to the 'report' you get:
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
####
Uh-huh. Who exactly is their target audience again?
"I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence."
Well, you could be right with this , Kirill.
Belarus, Armenia ( near 10%) and Kyrgyzstan( countries with economies interlinked heavily
with Russia's of course) all had very strong growth in their economies in the last year.
Russia as the mother economy for those countries would be expected to have a lesser but still
significant growth figures like 3-4%.
Other things like improved health and rapidly improving crime statistics in Russia, plus
public spending could further support your theory ( nearly 60 trillion roubles for the next 3
years is allocated). On the other hand salaries going up is what is needed to substantiate
your theory.
Salaries are determined by what the market perceives. If the Russian government and CBR are
spreading a fake image of Russia's economic health, then that will have negative
consequences. The choice is between those negative consequences and the neo-Reich lunatics
who are openly baying for war on Russia.
GNP is undoubtedly a fairly crude indicator of the health of an economy- I am a little
surprised that both GNP and the size of FIRE are not routinely published. Here is an
interesting bar graph giving some detail as to how the Russian economy managed in
2015-2016
People like Andrei Martyanov (smoothieX12) argue that the (real) US economy is much smaller
than customarily claimed, whilst the Russian economy is much larger. I have copied the above
graph from a comment by smoothieX12 to his article http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/it-begins-to-sink-finally-but-too-late.html
Interesting. I would have thought there was much more growth in Russian agriculture than
that, but maybe some of the self-sufficiency efforts are still in their early stages, or
perhaps domestic sales are harder to track for effect. Anyway, it puts paid to the nonsense
that American sanctions are crushing the Russian economy.
This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and
what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain,
for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically. Countries are reverting to the
barter system to nullify US sanctions in a way that does not use currency flow the USA might
try to interdict or confiscate. No actual money changes hands, so America can snoop on SWIFT
to its heart's content without seeing evidence of promising targets. Striking, too, is the
prevalence of real sympathy for Iran and an evident desire to help it with its problems. The
USA has apparently bitten off more than it can chew here, and several nations are openly
flouting its rules. If America cannot think of a way to come down hard on them, their example
may become contagious.
Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of
militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that
cannot be nuked.
There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for
their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia
responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation
about that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.
US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while
retaliation would have been devastating.
Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All
Baltic states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?
Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat;
Belarus 250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic
warfare with all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million
military can call at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their
territory , digged in while invaders are exposed.
There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US
political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.
The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down
in flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.
If faced with an existential conventional attack, Russian doctrine calls for nuclear
response. It would be silly to think they'd limit it to low yield missiles in staging areas
in E Europe. They WILL hit continental US and the Pentagon whizkids know this.
The US is using every tool to destabilize them for a change of government, and all the
provocations to now are not on a scale of all out war. It does serve to build a compelling
narrative that allows no discussion when laws are finally passed limiting freedom of
information and association.
I see it as the real target being all the natural resources and cheap but skilled labor in
the former USSR (on top of bringing down a competitor), and the US population just stading in
the way because they're not brainwashed enough for the generals taste.
The capitalist economies can't work in autarchy, they need to get more markets, they need to
bring down competitors. or they fall themselves, If you place the control of the population
at the top of their priorities, how do you explain the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc ?
How do you explain the mamoth military budget ? is it just in case a whole US city turns
communist and they need to reduce it to ashes ?
First they would have to make sure the rest of the country didn't learn about the one that
went communist. Then instead of reducing it to ashes they would use the association trees
they have built tracking internet and social media to identify and round up the ringleaders.
Rest of the country might never even know what had happened between partial blackouts and
misinformation.
Don't get me wrong, the US would love to replace partial state control of key Russian
industries with Western banking interests and have a free hand with the natural resources.
This is certainly the long term plan. But...in the near term they have to reestablish control
of the narrative.
The military budget is wealth transfer to folks who enjoy and agitate for any war.
Afghanistan was about military contracts, hydrocarbons and opium, the Taliban had to go. Iraq
(and Syria) are a problem for Israel - problem solved. Libya was setting up an alternative
banking system and possessed attractive gold reserves.
Afghanistan was a good occasion for military contracts, but hydrocarbons of the whole region,
(especially the project for a pipeline through the caspian sea that Russia and Iran opposed),
were a bigger reason.
Why israel so important to the US ? because the resources of the whole region, and because
they could threaten the suez canal.
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
Washington is concocting ludicrous charges against a Russian national for alleged election
meddling merely to find reasons for new sanctions and to play the 'Russia card' ahead of the
midterms, a top Kremlin official has warned.
The US is bringing up "ludicrous accusations" with a "laughable 'body of proof'" simply to
slap Moscow with a new round of sanctions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov
said
in a statement on Saturday. He added that "certain" US politicians hope to use charges against
Russia to gain the upper hand in "interparty brawls" ahead of the midterm elections, slated for
November 6.
Ryabkov made his remarks after the US Department of Justice officially leveled charges
against Russian national Elena Khusyaynova, who allegedly served as the chief accountant for
'Project Lakhta.' The officials suspect her of handling the funds used to pay online trolls for
posting comments to "sow discord in the US political system," and to "undermine faith" in US
democracy. These alleged activities were part of what Washington calls Russian strategic
efforts to meddle in the 2016 US presidential race and as well as the upcoming midterms.
... ... ...
Russian official Ryabkov dismissed the charges as "flagrant lies" and yet another element of
the "shameful slanderous campaign" unleashed by Washington against Moscow.
"The US clearly overestimates its capabilities," the deputy foreign minister said.
"While exhibiting hostility towards Russia and looking down on the whole world, they will
only meet tougher pushback."
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
As Russia is preparing plans to wean its banking system off the dollar, advancing a trend of
de-dollarization among the US's largest economic and geopolitical rivals, Russian President
Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by exploiting
the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes that don't bow to its
whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
While Putin's criticisms are hardly new, these latest remarks happen to follow a report in
the
Financial Times, published Tuesday night, detailing Russia's efforts to wean its economy
off of the dollar. The upshot is that while de-dollarization may be painful, it is, ultimately
doable.
The US imposed another round of sanctions against Russia over the summer in response to the
poisoning of former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and the US Senate is
considering measures that would effectively cut Russia's biggest banks off from the dollar and
largely exclude Moscow from foreign debt markets.
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by
Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian
establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar settlements into other
currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the
backing of Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the
Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have
been readily embraced by China and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly
fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises in Vladivostok last month,
Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to
counter US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think
about how to minimise dependence on the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's
spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to be done and
c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
Still, there's no question that US sanctions have damaged Russia's currency and contributed
to a rise in borrowing costs. And whether Russia - which relies heavily on energy exports - can
convince buyers of its oil and natural gas to accept payment in rubles remains an open
question. Increased trade with China and other Asian countries has helped reduce Russia's
dependence on the dollar. But the greenback still accounted for 68% of Russia's payment
inflow.
But, as Putin has repeatedly warned, that won't stop them from trying. The fact is that
Russia is a major exporter, with a trade surplus of $115 billion last year. As the FT pointed
out, Russia's metals, grain, oil and gas are consumed around the world - even in the west,
despite the tensions surrounding Russia's alleged involvement in the Skripal poisoning and its
annexation of Crimea.
To be sure, abandoning the dollar as the currency of choice for oil-related payments would
be no easy feat. But China has already taken the first step and show that it can be done by
launching a yuan-denominated futures contract that trades in Shanghai - striking the most
significant blow to date against the petrodollar's previously unchallenged dominance.
That should embolden Putin to continue with his experiment - not that the US is leaving him
much choice.
"... 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.
"... According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Perhaps it is Donald Trump's business background that leads him to believe that if you
inflict enough economic pain on someone they will ultimately surrender and agree to do whatever
you want. Though that approach might well work in New York real estate, it is not a certain
path to success in international relations since countries are not as vulnerable to pressure as
are individual investors or developers.
Washington's
latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against China, is astonishing even when
considering the low bar that has been set by previous presidents going back to Bill Clinton.
Beijing has already been pushing back over US sanctions imposed last week on its government-run
Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li
Shangfu for "engaging in significant transactions" with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is
on a list of US sanctioned companies. The transactions included purchases of Russian Su-35
combat aircraft as well as equipment related to the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile
system. The sanctions include a ban on the director entering the United States and blocks all
of his property or bank accounts within the US as well as freezing all local assets of the
Equipment Development Department.
More important, the sanctions also forbid conducting any transactions that go through the US
financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal, but it is
being challenged as numerous countries are working to find ways around it. Currently however,
as most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks
that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from
many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the
restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.
So in summary, Beijing bought weapons from Moscow and is being sanctioned by the United
States for doing so because Washington does not approve of the Russian government. The
sanctions on China are referred to as secondary sanctions in that they are derivative from the
primary sanction on the foreign company or individual that is actually being punished.
Secondary sanctions can be extended ad infinitum as transgressors linked sequentially to the
initial transaction multiply the number of potential targets.
Not surprisingly, the US Ambassador has been summoned and Beijing has canceled several
bilateral meetings with American defense department officials. The Chinese government has
expressed "outrage" and has demanded the US cancel the measure.
According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from
Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress
named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which
sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016
US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of
cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation.
Explaining the new sanctions, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a
statement elaborating that the initial sanctions on Russia were enacted "to further impose
costs on the Russian government in response to its malign activities." She added that the US
will "urge all countries to curtail relationships with Russia's defense and intelligence
sectors, both of which are linked to malign activities worldwide."
As engaging in "malign activities" is a charge that should quite plausibly be leveled
against Washington and its allies in the Middle East, it is not clear if anyone but the French
and British poodles actually believes the rationalizations coming out of Washington to defend
the indefensible. An act to "Counter America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" is, even as the
title implies, ridiculous. Washington is on a sanctions spree. Russia has been sanctioned
repeatedly since the passage of the fraudulent Magnitsky Act, with no regard for Moscow's
legitimate protests that interfering in other countries' internal politics is unacceptable.
China is currently arguing reasonably enough that arms sales between countries is perfect legal
and in line with international law.
Iran has been sanctioned even through it complied with an international agreement on its
nuclear program and new sanctions were even piled on top of the old sanctions. And in about
five weeks the US will be sanctioning ANYONE who buys oil from Iran, reportedly with no
exceptions allowed. Venezuela is under US sanctions to punish its government, NATO member
Turkey because it bought weapons from Russia and the Western Hemisphere perennial bad boy Cuba
has had various embargoes in place since 1960.
It should be noted that sanctions earn a lot of ill-will and generally accomplish nothing.
Cuba would likely be a fairly normal country but for the US restrictions and other pressure
that gave its government the excuse to maintain a firm grip on power. The same might even apply
to North Korea. And sanctions are even bad for the United States. Someday, when the US begins
to lose its grip on the world economy all of those places being sanctioned will line up to get
their revenge and it won't be pretty.
Further to the criminal act perpetrated by the Ukrainian government, namely the cutting off
of water supplies to the Crimea, one has to admit that as regards this matter the foreign
minister of the Ukraine, Pavel Klmkin, is one obnoxious little twat:
It is not the Ukraine that has cut off the Crimea from water: Russia did it, by its
cutting off of the Crimea from the Ukraine by force. In its own right, the occupation of the
Crimea is a terrible violation of international law and the rights of all
Crimeans.
Yes, and they have desalination plants. The water from the canal that runs from Kherson is
chiefly for irrigation. When they first closed the sluice in the Ukraine, the Crimea harvest
suffered. No doubt Crimea-Tatar farmers were very pleased about this.
Crimean water resources are limited, failing to fully meet the drinking and economic
needs of the region. Over 50 years, the problems of water resources in Crimea were solved by
using Dnieper water supplied through North-Crimean Canal; however, after the integration of
Crimea into Russia, Ukraine suspended water supply. At the aggravation of political situation
between Russia and Ukraine, the situation in the water-management sphere in the Republic of
Crimea looks very complicated. The water-management problems of Crimea should be solved based
on its own potential. Groundwater resources are the leading factor of sustainable development
of Crimean Region at the present stage.
My understanding is that in 2015, Russian geologists discovered three aquifers in Crimean
territory so pipelines have been built to connect the aquifers to the North Crimean Canal and
to supply water to people living in eastern Crimea near Kerch. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201504041020474871/#ixzz3WNLsZ6sG
Right. Indulging the will of the very great majority of Crimeans is a terrible violation of
international law, and that same population consequently deserves to be without water even
though the supply they depended upon comes from Ukraine. Pull the other one, Pavlo. Not even
a day-one civil-rights lawyer would buy that argument. The west has never contested that the
decision of Crimeans to sever their ties to Ukraine was that of the majority – not
really, It has danced around with that voting-at-the-point-of-a-Kalashnikov bullshit, but the
vote was not even close. If there were a do-over with the strictest supervision of western
officials, and Kuh-yiv itself got to write the referendum question, Crimea would still vote
to secede, and the west knows it. If it was such a loyal part of Ukraine before, why was it
the autonomous republic of Crimea?
The Ukraine-Crimea affair should stand as a textbook example of how the country that lost
territory did absolutely everything wrong in its attempts to get it back.
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign
'skin' of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for
"WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran. We wrote, on 3
August,
quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' (the US exit from JCPOA),
constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected "[Trump's] instincts, telling him
that most Americans are anything but eager, for a "post-American" world. Trump's supporters
don't want long wars, "but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national
decline".
It all began, very precisely, with Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' - which is to say, to the
moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli 'line': exiting from the Iranian
nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran's economy, and when he endorsed
the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni 'Arab NATO', led by Riyadh, that would confront
Shi'a Iran.
In practical terms, Trump's Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus
transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and
tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party. This
cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from
The Godfather.
But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) 'line', he
assumed to himself all 'the baggage' that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document,
prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and
US neocon camps into one. And they are still umbilically linked. 'Team Trump' now is filled with neocons who
are unreserved Iran-haters. And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu,
and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant
his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump's chief foreign policy advisor.
The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American
power – and there is nothing of earlier 'mutual advantage' to be heard of, or to be seen,
these days.
And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between
Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity –
for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria. Many hoped that from
this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US
and Russia, might have found fertile soil.
Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera'a, in south Syria, was smoothly
cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army. Israel did not demur in having the
Syrian army as their near neighbours. But then co-operation rather obviously stalled. It is not
clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The
Helsinki 'understandings' somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination
continued).
Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva
on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and,
if so, was such activity politically 'viable'. But before even that bilateral meeting with a
Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a
'roll-back Iran' brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond
"very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical
weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September),
claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay'at
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical
attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S.,
the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had
full intelligence on this false flag operation.
What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the
USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as
positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar. French President Emmanuel Macron too has
declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical
weapons attack there.
The Turkish newspaper Hurriyetsays that the
US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military
freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî,
controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern
al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone
over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is
unconfirmed)
Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the
E. Mediterranean, off Syria). And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian
Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a
tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.
Then, in the wake of Bolton's chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US
guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met.
The meeting was a disaster. Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in
the US elections. Petrushev refused. Trump said we have 'secret' evidence. Petrushev retorted
if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission. Bolton said effectively: We
sanction you anyway.
Well not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which
Petrushev put on the table). Bolton not only said flatly 'no', but afterwards went public with
the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal – thus killing it, and killing
the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy. Even the customary, bland,
uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be
agreed.
The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead. And the US is
prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria. Why? What is
going on?
One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now,
power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy. The
neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's
rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over
Syria. And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter.
Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State
Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' episode
says it 'cold'
:
"It has to do with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons) what is happening today, as
Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him
personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in
the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even
those many of them who declared "Never Trump" -- as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it up -- are
salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump
essentially boils in his own corrupt juices.
"A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish
others of their type. John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack
though he's not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon
"Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished business -- which
they largely commenced -- with Syria and Iran, Israel's two most serious potential threats. If
the Neocons got their way -- and they are remarkably astute at getting their way -- it would
mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the
greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia".
Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they – at least
– have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set
on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on
their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter
Iranian 'malign behaviour').
Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton's "very strong" military
reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear. (Mattis succeeded in
mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a 'nil
response' to Trump's Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an
unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian
government?
Will Israel join in any attack – using the pre-text of its self-awarded 'right' to
attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria? Given the new strategic 'fact' of the Iranian Defence
minister's 'surprise' Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering
any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu 'bet' on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli
aircraft entering Syrian airspace?
Who will blink first? Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations
sufficiently, to take notice and to say
'no' ?
Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can 'read the runes' of this affair – which
is to say that President Trump's highest officials remain committed, openly, or through 'false
flags', to defend the American 'global order'. These officials share a disdain for the Obama
administration's retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of
America's rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world
power: i.e. America's military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.
Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with
Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack
that would then be misrepresented as another 'atrocity' committed by the 'Syrian regime'. Eight
canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a
specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived
in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian 'victims'. Militants plan to
use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say .
But will Washington listen? From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian 'regime' is
subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) – in the context
of America's claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny – these 'regimes' become
transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy. For, when one
is upholding humanity's 'destiny' and seeking "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!", how can one wage
war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is
not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.
Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the 'Other' across western media; and - on the
other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia's rational
presentations hope to carry weight? The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the
threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean. But what
then?
"... "The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions ..."
"... "The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department thinks they are a bad idea.' ..."
"... Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East. ..."
"... And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of him existed. ..."
"... His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like – of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious threat. ..."
"... This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after largely non-existent communists across America. ..."
"The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With
Russia With New Sanctions
"The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury
department thinks they are a bad idea.'
I think in many such analyses about American-Russian strained relations an important actor
is left out, and that actor is America's strange Middle East quasi-colony, Israel.
Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set
of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East.
In order to have the kind of highly aggressive America represented by those wars, much in
Israel's favor, effort has to be made to keep antagonisms high. And Russia is inevitably viewed
as a barrier to an aggressive America, no matter how friendly Russian-Israeli relations are,
and Putin does a very good job of trying to keep good relations.
But, still, while Netanyahu and his gang smile for the cameras after meetings, their
deep-down drives are in conflict with Russia in some fundamental ways that cannot be made to
disappear with handshakes or smiles. A highly aggressive America serves Israel in its own
aggressive regional ambitions as well as in vague matters as "security," the term likely used
by its lobby in America.
Russia has her own experience with these drives in the unhappy induced-coup in Ukraine,
something in which that charming Neocon from the State Department, Barbara Nuland, famous for
bragging that America spent $5 billion on its Ukraine operation and also for once shouting
within earshot of others, "Fuck Europe!" played an important role.
The anti-Russian crowd in Washington – very much including the Neocons, who are part
and parcel of the total multi-fronted Israel Lobby in Washington, many of the Neocons holding
(or having held, as Nuland did) influential government posts – won something for their
cause whichever way events in Ukraine went.
They gained either a large country, hostile to Russia right on its border, one with good
American connections, to harass and worry Russia, or with the outcome we see, Ukraine having
made a fool of itself in falling apart through incompetence and pig-headedness, they have
gained the theme of Russian aggression. While Putin's moves were masterful and required, making
the very best of a very bad situation, what has emerged still serves these nasty folks in
stoking hatred of Russia, now accused of aggression, a charge strongly embraced in Washington
and in American-influenced parts of Western Europe.
Lindsay Graham is about the most vocal and reactionary defender of Israel in the Congress.
He might be matched by John McCain, but I'm not sure he doesn't in fact earn top honors in his
service to another country. He quite literally leaps to his feet at any mention of Israel. So,
when a guy like that strongly advocates greatly increased hostility towards Russia, it should
tell us something.
And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was
caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of
him existed.
You see, Graham is known as a fairly flagrant gay in Washington.
His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like –
of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious
threat.
This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover,
also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to
have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long
reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after
largely non-existent communists across America.
It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out
of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull
out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters.
Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.
If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and
sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is
punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that
Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for
the route to go through its waters.
What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one
above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage
of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to
Nord Stream II.
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've
suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further
proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes
anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there
is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for
cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the
thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference
from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks
"What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US
and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting
During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to
Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per
the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border
with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state
visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the
federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.
Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53
year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press
Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin
was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to
discuss that may be characterized as official talks.
Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the
topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing
their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with
economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine
was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was
very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is
the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in
Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure
destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the
Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing
campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at
all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new
sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both
countries support.
As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement
issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin
conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that
some understandings may have been achieved.
In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for
once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is
material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might
transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage
of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal
of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of
opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases.
This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the
international stage in the coming weeks.
In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least
attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed
and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the
tea leaves.
* * * *
Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for
how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.
On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing
with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the
music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin,
Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and
speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches
very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party
relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition
which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding
coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own
ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division
on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that
each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.
The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the
meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press
reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings
are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent
finding on what has happened..
The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After
Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian
television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However,
the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern
of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries
and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for
compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over
Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and
Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German
preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known
institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end
result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us
wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.
In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on
Saturday.
I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing
to an article in
The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help
rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much
more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued
before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria
and refugees.
The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private"
trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss
Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered
a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives
Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more
eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian
President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a
rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."
The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations
between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when
obliged to do so during international summits.
"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela
Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian
diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German
Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at
normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,'
explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."
And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now
facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and
for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir
Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on
Russia relating to the Skripal affair.
"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German
interests."
A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the
possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US
extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.
The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular
Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons.
And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the
Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again
the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue
to trade with Iran.
The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria
exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was
lacking these several past years is being recreated.
In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre
Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence
of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its
tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."
La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting
from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is
welcomed:
"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full
advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering
away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for
confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism
will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt
did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now
looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with
Moscow than with Washington.'
The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at
the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has
taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."
The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears
a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of
convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the
resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not
accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are
too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.
* * * *
The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the
wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.
In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse,"
Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the
University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate
political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play
a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the
the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him
with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in
society of an EU country.
As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related
article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites
experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.
Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to
a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included
the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC
and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500
police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the
Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.
A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the
Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the
talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that
both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.
The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their
list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any
analysis to speak of.
The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August
edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.
The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the
reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is
rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious
details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a
kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers,
two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in
Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious
biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian
President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.
FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting
in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on
how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be
characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the
consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their
statements before the talks.
Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its
article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that
both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned,
Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to
Merkel.
Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now
chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right
populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of
Merkel and Putin knows that.
Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with
Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President
Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there
is some movement now between Germany and Russia.
Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The
parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes:
"The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions,
and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step
forward."
* * * *
If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved
and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for
dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts
from different backgrounds.
Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on
state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's
forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a
strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.
The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist
Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive,
human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has
occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist
interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad
since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.
Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her
career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the
Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she
speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her
native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish
University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National
School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister,
which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she
is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to
restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.
Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning
in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal
with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.
As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a
pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market
makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it
will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have
been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the
subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.
Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news
programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside
Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.
* * * *
Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August,
and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most
helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and
editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant
insights on Russian television.
What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to
the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that
Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European
Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to
facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The
web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current
world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of
narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed
at friends and foes alike.
Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my
understanding of what Trump is doing and why.
The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make
America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist,
withdrawing America from the world community.
However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W.
Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the
West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His
more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing
fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept
in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in
the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia
but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to
purchases of military materiel from Russia.
What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared
values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the
alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the
globe where autocrats hold sway.
In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally
different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He
invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in
principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before
the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a
360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the
small slices we see discussed in the news.
When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what
he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming
more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the
American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas
bases.
The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical
achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against
Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by
inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of
American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a
blip.
By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not
conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is
not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of
the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of
these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks
about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out
for the interests of theirs.
In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that
they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong
competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in
the press.
Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line
with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.
Good Optics · about 3 hours ago
This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that -
though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly
does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course,
would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that
will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm
commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means
possible.
The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely
though that does appear a lot of the time . . .
Why is Congress so obsessed with starting a new Cold War with Russia? Are they all gripped
by group-think? Who do sanctions hurt most? And how can people visit with Rep. Thomas Massie
and Ron Paul later this month? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report with a very special
guest!
You can always count on the neocons in Congress to ignore reality, ignore evidence, and
ignore common sense in their endless drive to get us involved in another war.
Last week, for example, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-NC), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), and others joined up to introduce what Senator Graham called "the sanctions bill from
hell," aimed at applying "crushing" sanctions on Russia.
Senator Graham bragged that the bill would include "everything but the kitchen sink" in its
attempt to ratchet up tensions with Russia.
Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) bragged that the new sanctions bill "includes my language requiring
the State Department to determine whether Russia merits the designation of a State Sponsor of
Terror."
Does he even know what the word "terrorism" means?
Sen Ben Cardin (D-MD) warns that the bill must be passed to strengthen our resolve against
"Vladimir Putin's pattern of corroding democratic institutions and values around the world, a
direct and growing threat to US national security."
What has Russia done that warrants "kitchen sink" sanctions that will "crush" the country
and possibly designate it as a sponsor of terrorism? Sen. Menendez tells us:
"The Kremlin continues to attack our democracy, support a war criminal in Syria, and
violate Ukraine's sovereignty."
There is a big problem with these accusations on Russia : they're based on outright lies and
unproven accusations that continue to get more bizarre with each re-telling .
How strange that when US Senators like Menendez demand that we stand by our NATO allies even
if it means war, they attack Russia for doing the same in Syria. Is the Syrian president a "war
criminal," as he claims? We do know that his army is finally, with Russian and Iranian help,
about to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, which with US backing for seven years have turned Syria into
a smoking ruin. Does Menendez and his allies prefer ISIS in charge of Syria?
And how hypocritical for Menendez to talk about Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty. The
unrest in Ukraine was started by the 2014 US-backed coup against an elected leader. We have
that all on tape!
How is Russia "attacking our democracy"? We're still waiting for any real evidence that
Russia was involved in our 2016 elections and intends to become involved in our 2018 elections.
But that doesn't stop the propagandists, who claim with no proof that Russia was behind the
election of Donald Trump.
These Senators claim that sanctions will bring the Russians to heel, but they are wrong.
Sanctions are good at two things only: destroying the lives of innocent civilians and leading
to war.
As I mentioned in an episode of my Liberty Report last week, even our own history shows that
sanctions do lead to war and should not be taken lightly. In the run-up to US involvement in
the War of 1812, the US was doing business with both France and the UK, which were at war with
each other. When the UK decided that the US was favoring France in its commerce, it imposed
sanctions on the US. What did Washington do in response? Declared war. Hence the War of 1812,
which most Americans remember as that time when the British burned down the White House.
Recent polls show that the majority of Americans approve of President Trump's recent meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among Republicans, a vast majority support the meeting.
Perhaps a good defeat in November will wake these neocon warmongers up. Let's hope so!
"... 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.
"... Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers. ..."
"... The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal. ..."
ZURICH (Reuters) – One of Switzerland's largest banks, Credit Suisse, has frozen
roughly 5 billion Swiss francs ($5 billion) of money linked to Russia to avoid falling foul
of U.S. sanctions, according to its accounts, further increasing pressure on Moscow .
Credit Suisse is being cautious in part because of earlier bad experiences. In 2009, it
reached a $500 million settlement with U.S. authorities over dealings with sanctions-hit
Iran.
There have been other instances where European banks have been punished. In 2014,
France's BNP Paribas ( BNPP.PA ) agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion for violating U.S.
sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran.
Switzerland's banking watchdog FINMA does not require Swiss banks to enforce foreign
sanctions, but has said they have a responsibility to minimize legal and reputational
risks.
I hope the present Russian administration and those yet to come remember this.
Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated
in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers.
I doubt very many ordinary Russians lost anything, but they got a pretty useful lesson for
free. The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no
amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not
throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal.
I wonder whose money this was. Russian offshoring is rather sneaky and uses all sorts of
places like Cyprus and the Cayman Islands through various instruments. As of 2014, simply
keeping money in a western bank was no longer an option.
So this is either illegal money or Credit Suisse is simply lying.
That's a good point; some time ago (you're probably correct that it was 2014, or around
there) the Russian government did somewhat formalize its advice to not keep money in western
banks. As I best remember, it was only mandatory for members of government. But it seems
unlikely the government would order all its ministers and senators to move all monies held in
western banks out of those banks, and then leave government funds there itself. So perhaps
some oligarch/s got burned.
Possibly, but I doubt it. Saint Mikhail's money, what there is left of it, is transparent to
western investigations, and if they could think of a good reason they would give him a lot
more, especially if he were even remotely popular in Russia and they thought he might be a
candidate for insertion into Putin's role.
Now Credite Suisse says that Russian accounts have not been frozen, that the Bank had
reclassified certain assets placed under sanctions. By these actions no Russian customers
have been affected, reports TASS .
Meanwhile, in the world's greatest dirty money laundry, it has been revealed that the
London branch of Deutsche Bank has issued threats to the Russian government.
Deutsche Bank AG threatened to end business with Russia's government earlier this year
in a letter sent to the state demanding that it provide more information related to
know-your-customer records.
The lender's London branch sent the correspondence in June saying the business
relationship could be terminated if Russia failed to submit the documents within 30 days.
While that deadline has long since elapsed, Russia never answered the letter and the German
bank hasn't followed up on the initial request, according to two people with knowledge of the
matter.
Arschlöcher!
I was working only yesterday and last week as well in the main office of Deutsche Bank
here in Moscow.
Never saw no Fritzes there, only Ivans. Seemed to be business as usual to me..
Skripal (most probably false flag) poisoning now has distinct Washington connections. Cue
Bono?
Nobody can still explain why Skripals lost conscience simultaneously. That kills UK version
of door knob. Another strange issue is why all but one victims survived. That can be explained
only if this was a false flag and novichok was injected in bio samples.
Plans to impose the latest sanctions were announced by the Trump administration on Aug. 8, a
response to what the State Department said was Moscow's use of a nerve agent against a former
Russian agent and his daughter in Britain in March.
Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his
33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of
Salisbury after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to the front door
of his home. Both survived the attack.
Moscow has denied involvement in the attack. It has also denied meddling in the 2016 U.S.
elections.
'CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR'
Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Friday Moscow must change its ways
before the United States will lift its already long list of sanctions.
"The sanctions remain in force and will remain in force until the required change in Russian
behaviour," he told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.
The new measures will be published and come into effect on Aug. 27 and remain in place for
at least one year, according to the notice in the Federal Register, a daily catalogue of
government agency actions. They are authorized by the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons and
Warfare Elimination Act.
Space flight activities, government space cooperation, areas concerning commercial aviation
safety and urgent humanitarian assistance will be exempt.
A second batch of penalties will be imposed after 90 days unless Russia gives "reliable
assurance" that it would no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the
United Nations or another international observer group.
Soon after the attack on the Skripals, Washington also showed solidarity with Britain and
announced it would expel 60 Russian diplomats, joining governments across Europe in punishing
the Kremlin.
"... Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons. Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason to cooperate. ..."
"... Now Trump has not only gone back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well. ..."
"... Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of time before many more states look for ways to get around them. ..."
"... Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage ..."
"... If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal, Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT. In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions, the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's North Korea blunder ..."
"... In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah, proxies in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to deterrence ..."
"... I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract – for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning ..."
"... Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss? ..."
"... the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex are not in perfect alignment ..."
"... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory delight. ..."
"... The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences. China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... BTW, Trump is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current circumstances. ..."
Iran's Foreign Minister recently
criticized the U.S. for its "addiction" to sanctions:
"I believe there is a disease in the United States and that is the addiction
to sanctions," he told CNN, adding that, "Even during the Obama administration
the United States put more emphasis on keeping the sanctions it had not
lifted rather than implementing its obligation on the sanctions it lifted."
Zarif has his own reasons for saying this, but the addiction he describes
is all too real. Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely
reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one
issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons.
Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason
to cooperate. In Iran's case, they made significant concessions on the
nuclear issue in the expectation of receiving sanctions relief. Contrary to
the lies of nuclear deal opponents, Iran made the bulk of its concessions up
front in exchange for the promise of relief later. That relief was very slow
in coming to the extent that it came at all. Now Trump has not only gone
back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use
U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well.
Iran is still in compliance with the deal even after the U.S. broke its promises,
and now the U.S. is piling on sanctions simply for the sake of inflicting economic
harm. Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions
on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of
time before many more states
look for ways to get around them. The more that our government
abuses sanctions , the more likely it is that other states will create mechanisms
to shield themselves and their companies from them.
U.S. abuse of sanctions reminds me of another part of Bloomberg's recent
editorial on the nuclear deal. The editors write:
But a deepening economic crisis could yet force a change of heart in
Tehran. A second round of U.S. sanctions, targeting oil exports and due
in November, could also concentrate minds. For his part, Trump has said
he's open to meeting with Iran's leaders "whenever they want to." He might
welcome a second act to his summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. The Iranians
might reflect on the fact that Kim lost nothing from that encounter.
All this is, admittedly, slim hope on which to base a long, tortured
process of negotiation. But it's better than the false hope that Europe's
leaders are currently clinging to.
If additional sanctions "concentrate minds" in Tehran, what is likely to
happen? Prior to the nuclear deal, increasing sanctions spurred Iran to build
tens of thousands of centrifuges and advance their nuclear program significantly.
Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force
the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes
them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage
. In order for sanctions to have any chance of being effective, the other government
has to believe that there is way to get the sanctions lifted permanently. Iran's
leaders no longer believe that because Trump shredded our government's credibility
by reneging on the deal. Now that the U.S. has shown that its promises of sanctions
relief are meaningless, it can impose any number of sanctions for as long as
it wants and all it will do is provoke Iran into doing exactly what our government
opposes.
If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal,
Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario,
the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT.
In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions,
the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's
North Korea blunder . Sanctions addicts don't think that abusing sanctions
can have adverse and undesirable consequences, but in this case they could end
up producing a much worse outcome to the detriment of all concerned. Posted
in
foreign policy ,
politics . Tagged
Iran ,
North Korea ,
Bloomberg ,
NPT ,
Mohammad Javad Zarif ,
Donald Trump ,
JCPOA .
"In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could
convince Iran's government to leave the NPT."
For the Bolt-On et.al. this would be a best case outcome. There are good
arguments that Iran will refrain from anything that would deliver a pretext
for "non-proliferation at gunpoint" until at least 2020 – US election –
and 2021 – Iranian elections.
In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for
the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a
nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into
those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah,
proxies in Iraq.
When the Trump administration and Congress defined that "malignancy",
which so mirrors our own, they signaled clearly that Iran's actions were
exposing weaknesses and serve as constraints on US impunitive action.
Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually
assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to
deterrence .
I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant
cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract
– for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning
. For administrations such as Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, that all hail
from different toxic brews of corporate and oligarch interests, there has
to be a reason to force these costs on one segment of their true "constituencies".
On first glance, it would imply that the interests of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex – that is, the profit and business interests of the industrial segment,
or the ancillary benefits for the other war profiteers – trump (for lack
of a more appropriate word) the concerns and interests of the non-defense
and non-electioneering business.
Bloomberg, of all publications, should be sensitive to this, unless they,
too, place a premium on "national securities".
Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade
it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the
follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss?
Our foreign policy might be decided and defined by this trade-off.
Do our war profiteering business elites consider regime change a requirement
for deferred return on investment, or would they prefer sanctions in perpetuity?
Certainly, the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex are not in perfect alignment . For example, a trillion dollar
budget for mutually assured nuclear suicide might offer significant short
term profits to a narrow "market segment" while increasing the "business
risks" to all beneficiaries of inbred wealth across the world, for generations.
But it would appear that these trade-offs are not well understood. I
guess I cannot complain about that, given my choice of "inbred wealth" as
a description for the multi-generational estrangement of the rich, connected
and powerful from existential realities.
Given the Neocon constitution of Trump's inner circle, it is not surprising
that the Karl Rove delusion is again in play:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will
be left to just study what we do."
How did that work out last time?
U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or
the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and
Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel
and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory
delight.
How did that work out in Libya, Ukraine and Syria? And Mattis successfully
fear-mongers out the wazoo for even more hyper-expensive "lethality".
The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way
ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences.
China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from
the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off
Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy.
And incredulously, Trump merely stands back and watches as his minions run
his albeit mal-formed foreign policy vision into the ground. BTW, Trump
is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current
circumstances.
Stick a fork in this harebrained administration – because it's cooked
There has been a dramatic shift in how the United States government carries out its business
internationally. Admittedly, Washington has had a tendency to employ force to get what it has
wanted ever since 9/11, but it also sometimes recognized that other countries had legitimate
interests and accepted there was a place for diplomacy to resolve issues short of armed
conflict. The Bush Administration reluctance to broaden its engagement in the Middle East after
it recognized that it had blundered with Iraq followed by Obama's relaxation of tensions with
Cuba and his negotiation of a nuclear agreement with Iran demonstrated that sanity sometimes
prevailed in the West Wing.
That willingness to be occasionally accommodating has changed dramatically, with the State
Department under Mike Pompeo currently more prone to deliver threats than any suggestions that
we all might try to get along. It would be reasonable enough to criticize such behavior because
it is intrinsically wrong, but the truly frightening aspect of it would appear to be that it is
based on the essentially neoconservative assumption that other countries will always back down
when confronted with force majeure and that the use of violence as a tool in international
relations is, ultimately, consequence free.
I am particularly disturbed with the consequence free part as it in turn is rooted in the
belief that countries that have been threatened or even invaded have no collective memory of
what occurred and will not respond vengefully when the situation changes. There have been a
number of stunningly mindless acts of aggression over the past several weeks that are
particularly troubling as they suggest that they will produce many more problems down the road
than solutions.
The most recent is the
new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury England. For those not
following developments, last week Washington abruptly and
without any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in
the belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter
Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia
Skripal has
recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the
conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted
by the British and American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
Turkey is also feeling America's wrath over the continued detention of an American
Protestant Pastor Andrew Brunson by Ankara over charges that he was connected to the coup
plotters of 2016, which were allegedly directed by Fetullah Gulen, a Muslim religious leader,
who now resides in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump has made the detention the
centerpiece of his Turkish policy, introducing sanctions and tariffs that have led in part
to a collapse of the Turkish lira and a run on the banking system which could easily lead to
default and grave damage to European banks that hold a large party of the country's debt.
And then there is perennial favorite Iran, which was hit with reinstated
sanctions last week and is confronting a ban on oil sales scheduled to go into effect on
November 4th. The US has said it will sanction any country that buys Iranian oil after that
date, though a number of governments including Turkey, India and China appear to be prepared to
defy that demand. Several European countries are reportedly preparing mechanisms that will
allow them to trade around US restrictions.
What do Russia, Turkey and Iran have in common? All are on the receiving end of punitive
action by the United States over allegations of misbehavior that have not been demonstrated.
Nobody has shown that Russia poisoned the Skripals, Turkey just might have a case that the
Reverend Brunson was in contact with coup plotters, and Iran is in full compliance with the
nuclear arms agreement signed in 2015. One has to conclude that the United States has now
become the ultimate angry imperial power, lashing out with the only thing that seems to work
– its ability to interfere in and control financial markets – to punish nations
that do not play by its rules.
Given Washington's diminishing clout worldwide, it is a situation that is unsustainable and
which will ultimately only really punish the American people as the United States becomes more
isolated and its imperial overreach bankrupts the nation. As America weakens, Russia, Turkey,
Iran and all the other countries that have been steamrolled by Washington will likely seek
revenge. To avoid that, a dramatic course correction by the US is needed, but, unfortunately,
is unlikely to take place.
According to leading analysts, America decided to take such a tough step because of
Washington's desire to restrain the development of our state as much as possible. However, it
is already clear that such actions on the part of American colleagues will only worsen
relations between the two superpowers. The new sanctions package altogether nullifies all
previous agreements.
"All the positive aspects that have emerged after the meeting of the two presidents in
Helsinki, of course, will be almost completely leveled," the media quoted the statement of the
head of the center for military and political studies Vladimir Batyuk.
According to him, the actions of the us administration threaten with negative consequences,
extremely complicating the further dialogue between Washington and Moscow.
First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on international Affairs Vladimir
dzhabarov, commenting on the situation, said - the United States is trying to "trim the wings"
of Russia.
"The reason is banal – they are trying to restrain the development of Russia. The
Americans themselves understand that our country is now deploying its wings, Russia is on the
rise, it can become a powerful competitor both economically and militarily. Therefore at any
cost try to constrain us", – the member of the Federation Council spoke.
According to dzhabarov, our country has long understood that Russia has no partners in
America. The US is engaged in dirty methods of competition, using a variety of levers to
squeeze Moscow from the EU energy markets.
"But it's useless. The history they, probably, not teaching. Let them read what the
sanctions against Russia led to, " the Senator added.
We will remind, on August 8, the U.S. state Department announced the introduction of new
restrictive measures against Russia. This package of anti-Russian sanctions includes a ban on
the supply of dual-use products to Russia, a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations, an
almost complete cessation of us exports, as well as a ban on flights to the States of the
Russian company Aeroflot.
"... (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it) ..."
"... still refuses to say any such thing ..."
"... Look at this paragraph: ..."
"... "Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities." ..."
"... It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO ..."
"... would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia. ..."
"... In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world. ..."
"... Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia ..."
"... Press Statement ..."
"... Department Spokesperson ..."
"... Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. ..."
"... Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018. ..."
All of the sanctions (economic, diplomatic, and otherwise) against Russia are based on
clearly demonstrable intentional falsehoods; and the sanctions which were announced on August
8th are just the latest example of this consistent tragic fact -- a fact which will be proven
here, with links to the evidence, so that anyone who reads here can easily see that all of
these sanctions are founded on lies against Russia.
The latest of these sanctions were announced on Wednesday August 8 th . Reuters
headlined
"US imposes sanctions on Russia for nerve agent attack in UK" and reported that,
"Washington said on Wednesday it would impose fresh sanctions on Russia by the end of August
after it determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his
daughter in Britain." This was supposedly because "Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's
GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped
unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form
of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home's front door. European countries
and the United States expelled 100 Russian diplomats after the attack, in the strongest action
by President Donald Trump against Russia since he came to office."
However, despite intense political pressure that the UK Government and 'news'media had
placed upon the UK's Porton Down intelligence laboratory to assert that the poison had been
made in Russia (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it)
, the Porton Down lab refused to say this. Though the US Government is acting as ifPorton
Down's statement "determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent," the actual fact is that
Porton Down still refuses to say any such thing , at all -- this allegation is merely
a fabrication by the US Government, including its allies, UK's Government and other Governments
and their respective propaganda-media. It's a bald lie.
On March 18th, the great British investigative journalist and former British diplomat Craig
Murray had headlined about UK's Foreign Secretary,
"Boris Johnson Issues Completely New Story on Russian Novichoks" and he pointed to the key
paragraph in the Porton Down lab's statement on this matter -- a brief one-sentence
paragraph:
Look at this paragraph:
"Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took
responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet
Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities."
It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as
made in Russia, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office -- UK's foreign ministry]
would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in
Russia.
Murray's elliptical report, which unfortunately was unclearly written -- it was rushed, in
order to be able to published on the same day, March 18 th , when the UK's official
response to the Porton Down lab's analysis was published -- was subsequently fully explained on
March 23 rd at the excellent news-site Off-Guardian, which specializes in
investigating and interpreting the news-media (in this case, Craig Murray's article, and the
evidence regarding it); they headlined "Skripal
case: 'closely related agent" claim closely examined'," and concluded their lengthy and
detailed analysis:
In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way
possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it
has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It
shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and
to the world.
Nothing has been published further about the Skripal/Novichoks matter since then, except
speculation that's based on the evidence which was discussed in detail in that March 23
rd article at Off-Guardian.
On the basis of this -- merely an open case which has never been examined in more detail
than that March 23rd analysis did -- the Skripal/Novichok case has been treated by the UK
Government, and by the US Government, and by governments which are allied with them, and by
their news-media, as if it were instead a closed case, in which what was made public
constitutes proof that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government. On that
blatantly fraudulent basis, over a hundred diplomats ended up being expelled.
The Porton Down lab still refuses to say anything that the UK Government can quote
as an authority confirming that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government.
All that's left of the matter, then, is a cold case of official lies asserting that proof
has been presented, when in fact only official lies have been presented to the public.
This is the basis upon which the US State Department, on August 8th, issued the following
statement to 'justify' its new sanctions:
Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act
Sanctions on Russia
Press Statement
Heather Nauert
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 8, 2018
Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined
under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act)
that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in
violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its
own nationals.
Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect
upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22,
2018.
US law is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" -- the opposite of legal systems in
which the contrary assumption applies: "guilty until proven innocent." However, regarding such
matters as invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 upon the basis of no authentic evidence; and
invading and destroying Libya in 2011 on the basis of no authentic proof of anyone's guilt; and
on the basis of invading and for years trying to destroy Syria on the basis of America's
supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Syria's secular government; and on the basis of lying
repeatedly against Russia in order to load sanction after sanction upon Russia and to 'justify'
pouring its missiles and thousands of troops onto and near Russia's border as if preparing to
invade 'the world's most aggressive country' -- the US federal Government routinely violates
that fundamental supposition of its own legal system ("innocent until proven guilty"), whenever
its rulers wish. And yet, it calls itself a 'democracy'.
Donald Trump constantly says that he seeks improved relations with Russia, but when his own
State Department lies like that in order to add yet further to the severe penalties that it had
previously placed against Russia for its presumed guilt in the Skripal/Novichok matter, then
Trump himself is publicly exposing himself as being a liar about his actual intentions
regarding Russia. He, via his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's State Department, not only is
punishing Russia severely for this unproven allegation, but now adds yet further penalties
against Russia for it. Trump is being demanded by the US Congress to do this, but it is his
choice whether to go along with that demand or else expose that it's based on lies. He likes to
accuse his opponents of lying, but, quite obviously, the members of Congress who are demanding
these hiked rounds of sanctions against Russia are demanding him to do what he actually wants
to do -- which is now clearly demonstrated to be the exact opposite of exposing those lies. If
Trump is moving toward World War III on the basis of lies, then the only way he can stop doing
it is by exposing those lies. He's not even trying to do that.
Nothing is being said in the State Department's cryptic announcement on August 8th that sets
forth any reasonable demand which the US Government is making to the Russian Government, such
that, if the reasonable demand becomes fulfilled by Russia's Government, then the United States
Government and its allies will cease and desist their successive, and successively escalating,
rounds of punishment against Russia.
Russia is being offered no path to peace, but only the reasonable expectation of
escalating lie-based American 'justifications' to perpetrate yet more American-and-allied
aggressions against Russia.
There have been three prior US excuses for applying prior rounds of sanctions against
Russia, and all of them have likewise been based upon lies, and varnished with many layers of
overstatements.
First, in 2012, there was the Magnitsky Act, which was based upon frauds (subsequently
exposed here
and
here and
here ) which assert that Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by the Russian Government. The
evidence (as linked-to there) is conclusive that he was not; but the US Government and its
allies refuse even to consider it.
Then, in 2014, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation, and the US
and its allies allege that this was because Russia under Putin 'seized' Crimea from Ukraine, when in fact
America under Obama had, just weeks prior to that Crimean breakaway, seized Ukraine and turned
it against Russia and against Crimea and the other parts of Ukraine which had voted
overwhelmingly for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom the Obama regime had
just overthrown in a
bloody coup that had been in the planning ever
since at least 2011 inside the Obama Administration . Several rounds of US-and-allied
economic sanctions were imposed against Russia for that -- for the constant string of lies
against Russia, and of constant cover-ups of
"the most blatant coup in history," which had preceded and caused the breakaway.
These lies originated with Obama; and Trump accuses Obama of lying, but not on this, where
Obama really did lie, psychopathically
. Instead, Trump makes those lies bipartisan. On what counts the most against Obama, Trump
seconds the Obama-lies, instead of exposing them. And yet Trump routinely has accused Obama as
having lied, even on matters where it's actually Trump who has been lying about Obama.
Then, there have been the anti-Russia sanctions that are based upon Russiagate and 'Trump is
Putin's stooge and stole the election.' That case against Russia has not been proven, and
Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange says that what he had published were leaks from the DNC and
Podesta's computer, not hacks at all; and yet the sanctions were imposed almost as soon as the
Democratic Party's accusations started. Those sanctions, too, are utterly baseless except as
being alleged responses to unproven (and likely false) allegations . Furthermore, even in
the worst-case scenario: the US Government itself routinely overthrows foreign governments, and
continues tapping the phones and electronic communications of foreign governments, and
manipulating elections abroad. Even in the worst-case scenario, Russia hasn't done anything
that historians haven't already proven that the US Government itself routinely does. That's the
case even if Russia is guilty as charged, on all of the U.S-and-allied
accusations.
Either the lies will stop, or else we all will. Trump, as usual, is on the
wrong side of the lies . And he seems to be too much of a coward to oppose them, in these
cases, which are the most dangerous lies of all. This is how we could all end. Doing something
heroic that would stop it, seems to be way beyond him -- he doesn't even try. That's the type
of cowardice which should be feared, and despised, the most of all. Trump has taken up Obama's
worst, and he runs with it. Trump had promised the opposite, during his Presidential campaign.
But this is the reality of Trump -- a profoundly filthy liar -- at least insofar as he has,
thus far, shown himself to be. What he will be in the future is all that remains in question.
But this is what he has been, up till now.
"... For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security. ..."
"... Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking. ..."
"... US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. ..."
"... Moscow could sell off its billions of dollars of US Treasury securities ..."
"... It could end titanium exports to the United States ..."
"... Nor have four other circumstances. ..."
"... turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. ..."
"... in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia. ..."
"... with the apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, ..."
"... is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during the 2016 presidential election . ..."
"... only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced, almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. ..."
"... to thwart and even punish President Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki summit in July. ..."
For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security.
Cohen begins by putting the current bipartisan Senate campaign to impose new, "crushing" sanctions on Russia in historical context.
Broadly understood, sanctions have been part of US policy toward Russia for much of the past 100 years. During the Russian civil
war of 1918-20, President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to fight against the emerging Soviet government. Though the "Reds"
were clearly the established government of Soviet Russia by 1921, Washington continued to deny the USSR diplomatic recognition until
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established formal relations in 1933. During much of the 40-year Cold War, the United States imposed
various sanctions on its superpower rival, mainly related to technological and military exports, along with periodic expulsions of
diplomats and "spies" on both sides.
Congress' major political contribution was the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which denied Moscow privileged trading status with
the United States, primarily because of Kremlin restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. Indicative of how mindlessly
habitual US sanctions had become, Jackson-Vanik was nullified only in late 2012, long after the end of the Soviet Union and after
any restrictions on Jews leaving (or returning to) Russia. Even more indicative, it was immediately replaced, in December 2012, by
the Magnitsky Act, which purported to sanction individual Russian officials and "oligarchs" for "human-rights abuses." The Magnitsky
Act remains law, supplemented by additional sanctions leveled against Russia as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and particularly
Moscow's annexation of Crimea.
Looking back over this long history, there is no evidence that any US sanctions ever significantly altered Moscow's "behavior"
in ways that were intended. Or that they adversely affected Russia's ruling political or financial elites. Any pain inflicted fell
on ordinary citizens, who nonetheless rallied "patriotically" around the Kremlin leadership, most recently around Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more
akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking.
Why, then, Washington's new bout of sanction mania against Moscow, especially considering the harsh official Russian reaction
expressed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who called the Senate's proposed measures "a declaration of economic war" and promised
that the Kremlin would retaliate?
One explanation is an underlying, astonishing assumption recently
stated by Michael McFaul , the media-ubiquitous
former US ambassador to Moscow and a longtime Russia scholar: "To advance almost all of our core national security and economic interests,
the US does not need Russia." Such a statement by a former or current policymaker and intellectual is perhaps unprecedented in modern
times - and manifestly wrong. US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. They include avoiding
nuclear war; preventing a new and more dangerous arms race; guarding against the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction;
coping with international terrorists (who are in pursuit of such materials); achieving lasting peace in Syria and elsewhere in the
Middle East; fostering prosperity and stability in Europe, of which Russia is a part; promoting better relations with the Islamic
world, of which Russia is also a part; and avoiding a generation-long confrontation with a formidable new alliance that already includes
Russia, China, Iran, and other non-NATO countries. If McFaul's assumption is widespread in Washington, as it seems to be, we are
living in truly unwise and perilous times.
A second assumption is no less myopic and dangerous: that the Kremlin is weak and lacks countermeasures to adopt against the new
sanctions being advocated in Washington. Consider, however, the following real possibilities. Moscow could sell off its billions
of dollars of US Treasury securities and begin trading with friendly nations in non-dollar currencies, both of which it has
already begun to do. It could restrict, otherwise undermine, or even shut down many large US corporations long doing profitable business
in Russia, among them Citibank, Cisco Systems, Apple, Microsoft, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor
Co., and even Boeing. It could end titanium exports to the United States , which are vital to American civilian and military
aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing. And terminate the sale of rocket engines essential for NASA and US satellite operations.
The world's largest territorial country, Russia could charge US airlines higher tariffs for their regular use of its air space or
ban them altogether, making them uncompetitive against other national carriers. Politically, the Kremlin could end its own sanctions
on Iran and North Korea, alleviating Washington's pressure on those governments. And it could end the Russian supply transit to US
troops fighting in Afghanistan used since the early 1990s.
None of this seems to have been considered by Washington's sanction zealots. Nor have four other circumstances. Sanctions
against Russia's "oligarchs" actually help Putin, whom the US political-media establishment so despises and constantly indicts. For
years, he has been trying to persuade many of the richest oligarchs to repatriate their offshore wealth to Russia. Few did so. Now,
fearful of having their assets abroad frozen or seized by US measures, more and more are complying. Second, new sanctions limiting
Moscow's ability to borrow and finance investment at home will retard the country's still meager growth rate . But the Kremlin coped
after the 2014 sanctions and will do so again by turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western
partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. (Russian agricultural production, for example, has
surged in recent years, now becoming a major export industry.) Third, already unhappy with existing economic sanctions against Russia,
European multinational corporations - and thus Europe itself - may tilt even farther away from their capricious "transatlantic partner"
in Washington, who is diminishing their vast market in the East. And fourth, waging "economic war" is one impulsive step from breaking
off all diplomatic relations with Russia, this too actually being discussed by Washington zealots. Such a rupture would turn the
clock back many decades, but in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia.
Finally, what reason do Washington extreme Cold Warriors themselves give for imposing new sanctions on Russia? Most of them are
in the US Senate, historically a body with at least several independent-minded distinguished statesmen, but no longer, with the
apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has demonstrated considerable wisdom in regard to US-Russian relations.
Their professed reasons are various and nonsensical. Some say Russia must be sanctioned for Ukraine, but those events happened four
years ago and have already been "punished." Others say for "Russia's aggression in Syria," but it was Putin's military intervention
that destroyed the Islamic State's terrorist occupation of much of the country and ended its threat to take Damascus, to the benefit
of America and its allies, including Europe and Israel. Still others insist the Kremlin must be sanctioned for its "nerve agent"
attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK several months ago. But the British government's case against the Kremlin has
virtually fallen apart, as any attentive reader of articles in David Johnson's Russia
List will understand.
Ultimately, though, the new bout of sanction mania is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during
the 2016 presidential election . In reality, there was no "attack" - no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11, no Russian parachuters descending
on Washington - only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced,
almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. Indeed, whatever "meddling" Russian actors did in 2016 may well have been
jaywalking compared to the Clinton administration's massive, highly intrusive political and financial intervention on behalf of the
failing Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection campaign in 1996.
We are left, then, with the real reason behind the new anti-Russian sanctions effort: to thwart and even punish President
Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki
summit in July. This bizarre, also unprecedented, reality is more than a whisper. According to a
New York Times "news
analysis," as well as other published reports,
a "bipartisan group of senators, dismayed that Mr. Trump had not publicly confronted Mr. Putin over Russia's election meddling,
released draft legislation" of new sanctions against Moscow. "Passage of such a bill would impose some of the most damaging sanctions
yet."
Leave aside for now that it is not Russian "meddling" that is delegitimizing our elections but instead these fact-free allegations
themselves that are doing so. (How many losing candidates in 2018 will claim their victory was snatched away by Putin?) Consider
instead that for doing what every American president since Eisenhower has done - meet with the sitting Kremlin leader in order to
avoid stumbling into a war between the nuclear superpowers - in effect both Trump and Putin are being condemned by the Washington
establishment, including by members of Trump's own intelligence agencies.
If so, who will avert the prospect of war with Russia, a new Cuban missile-like crisis, conceivably in the Baltic region, Ukraine,
or Syria? Certainly not any leading representative of the Democratic Party. Certainly not the current Russophobic "bipartisan" Senate.
Certainly not the most influential media outlets, which amplify the warmongering folly almost daily. In this most existential regard,
there is for now only, like it or not, President Donald Trump.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their
(usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com .
Comment: As Cohen brilliantly points out - sanctions, for the US, are a dead end.
"... Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics . ..."
It's time for everyone to come off Twitter – it is like writing your message on your
buttocks with a black sharpie and dropping your trousers. Tweets are the kind of stupid thing
you send out at the end of work after you've had a bastard of a day, and something you read
or hear pushes you over the edge. People in diplomatic posts should not be allowed to use
Twitter at all, and should be punished for doing so – reporters now avidly follow the
Twitter feed of anyone who is anyone, and pounce on anything that has not been thought
through before it can be deleted: an attempt to delete it is just the icing on the cake, an
admission that you shouldn't have said it.
Time was, diplomats ran everything they said in writing in an official capacity through a
review before it was released, it was parsed six ways from Sunday to see how it might be
spun, twisted or misinterpreted. Diplomats speaking in a live interview were careful to
remain vague and say nothing which might not have meant several different things. You did not
get countries straining to get at one another because of something the minister of
agriculture said. But now everybody feels they can speak for the government on Twitter. It's
hard to imagine how the various countries of the world could come to be represented by their
stupidest citizens.
I hope America does formally sanction the Russian finance and banking sector. They're
already doing it under the radar, and going formal would give Russia an excuse to dump SWIFT
and stop using it, as well as the US dollar. Mastercard and Visa would be gonzo, taillights,
possibly in China as well. America sanctioning the Russian financial sector would remove its
last ability to keep an eye on it easily.
Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that
Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent
and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as
uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the
US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics .
It's just diplo-speak, to mark the speaker as a civilized man and not a thug. That is
beginning to become a bit of a sore point – is there anyone left who actually believes
that because Russian diplomats say "our American friends" or "our American colleagues", that
they labour under a delusion that this is just a temporary spat and under it all they still
have brotherly connections? If so, let me disabuse all those people of that notion; the
Russian government and all its operatives are well aware that America is a self-declared and
thus committed enemy. But saying, "the Americans, our enemies" would make for tiresome
commentary in the western papers, in which ideologues would assess that this practice proved
the Russians are the aggressors while westerners are just trying to work it out.
Alternatively, they could lower themselves to the vernacular and instruct, "Listen up,
motherfuckers".
Russia understands that America is an enemy and not a friend of any description, just as
it understands the United Nations is an American-dominated body and that it is next to
useless to expect the UN to back any Russian initiative. It continues to go through the
motions in both cases, merely to underline who is following the rules and protocols set up by
a better and more aware global civilization than currently prevails, and who is just kicking
sand in the other's face and trying to get him to swing for the chin.
Very true. Poll after poll fails to show any concern by American citizens over Russian
"meddling" or Russian "assertiveness". Sure, questions can be posed such as "Should the US
resist the Russian invasion of xxxxx?". Naturally, the answer would likely be yes. But when
asked, without prompting, what concerns them, Russia does not register as a concern at any
level. I find this remarkable as anti-Russian news is often the lead on every network evening
news show. I can not recall a news broadcast for many months that did not include a
Russian-bashing story. The tipping point on media credibility may have been reached
Cut off titanium metals and fabrications to the West – Boeing shutdowns as well as
many other US aerospace operations;
Close off air space or charge much higher tariffs to US carriers using Russian airspace. US
airlines become non-competitive in many Asian and European markets;
Stop exporting LNG and other energy products to the US;
Raise taxes or shutdown US companies in Russia;
Stop exports of the RD-180 and 181 rocket engines.
Action 1 would have a devastating impact on US aerospace manufacturing. The US has little
ability to replace with domestic or foreign supplies. This action should be reserved in the
event of extremely aggressive US actions such as a direct military attack on Syria;
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
"... Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride. ..."
"... Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous. ..."
"... I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA. ..."
"... Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture ..."
"... I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere. ..."
"... The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people. ..."
"... It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate. ..."
Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and
trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those
from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would
subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride.
Mr. Putin's popularity with the Russian people rests largely on their confidence that he
is looking out for them, and always carefully balancing risk with reward. If Russia were run
by somebody like Erdogan, the west would have succeeded in overthrowing him ages ago.
Russia is in a good position to resist sanctions, because Washington dares not impose
restrictions on its trade in oil and gas. While it would be wrong to assume Russia has
nothing else, these are core industries and in the other sectors where Russia is strong, the
west does not buy much from it anyway except for steel and raw materials. Russia can easily
replace those markets. But western brands who spent decades building up their market in
Russia slowly and carefully have lost it almost overnight. And they will be a long, long time
getting it back.
PCR's sources of information probably focus too much on the doings of the Central Bank of
Russia and not enough on other sources of advice that the Russian government might rely on.
You wonder whether PCR or his researchers are aware that the Russians and the Chinese might
be mocking the US in the statements and policies they choose to make public.
Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like
turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is
clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to
the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are
potentially stupid dangerous.
I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech
which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as
well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian.
Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA.
Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO
restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this
opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back
and see the bigger picture.
I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from
Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to
get elsewhere.
I also agree Russia should keep on supplying the EU with energy, for a couple
of reasons. One, any interruption in the supply is just what Washington and its Atlanticist
Eurobuddies are looking for so they can label Russia an unreliable partner, and start that
whole alternative-sources conversation again: it's why they want to keep Ukraine in the loop
– to initiate disruptions and promote uncertainty about the reliability of Russian gas.
Two, Russia has a good chance of splitting factions in Europe off from the USA, as the latter
is more and more perceived to be trying to boss the European energy market so as to secure a
captive customer for its own exports. The last thing Russia needs is to create the impression
that Washington is saving Europe instead of dicking it around.
"The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only
one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia's economy. By any definition, Washington is,
in effect, declaring war on Russia.
The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about
them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling.
But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical
damage on Russian society and Russian people.
It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl
von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate."
All these articles are hysterical pap. The events after 2014 have demonstrated that Russia is
immune to western sanctions and actually massively benefits from them. It has also shown that
it can rapidly react to changing financial conditions as seen in the offloading of $230
billion in foreign debt in 2015. The current round of "the mother of all sanctions" trash
talk from Washington is desperate and pathetic failure.
Russia has no reason or incentive for war. It is NATzO that wants to take Russia out.
Russia will adjust to the new sanctions by become fully independent of any western financial
or economic links. Russia has the critical economic mass to by an autarchy. But it does not
need to be since it will keep on trading with most of the planet. NATzO accounts for 11% of
the global population (but thinks it is 100%). The congenital retards who run NATzO are
helping China to become the next premier financial power. The Yuan will replace the dollar by
necessity if not by choice.
I want to see the writers of this scaremongering garbage list the actual economic impacts
on Russia. Starting with the financial ones. Russia does not depend on foreign currencies. It
also does not depend on foreign loans like some banana republic. The current claims by the
chimps in Congress that they will bring Russia's economy to its knees are the same BS as
during the post Banderite Kiev coup sanctions which Obama was sure were going to cut Russia
down.
There is some truth in what you say but nevertheless I think you quite underestimate the
threat of US sanctions. One doesn't have to be an unabashed fan of Ben Aris to accept some of
the points that he makes in the following article.
http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-us-declares-economic-war-on-russia-146707/?source=blogs
In any case, I am a fan of Eric Kraus and he has serious concerns- check out some of his
comments here, say, for example, 7 minutes in.
Eric Kraus apparently thinks that Russian enterprises need to borrow dollars or euro from the
west. He is dead wrong. Russia can get all the dollars and euro it needs via the exports of
oil and gas, minerals, military equipment, nuclear power plants and assorted other exports
over $400 billion US per year. That was the point of my post: Uncle Scumbag's sanctions on
financial transactions do not cut Russia off, they cut the US and the EU off from the Russian
market. We are back to 2014 and these new "mother of all sanctions" will be as useless as the
previous round.
As for Japan, it is a useless comparison. Pearl Harbour was triggered by the US trying to
cut Japan off from vital resources. Non financial ones. Nobody can cut Russia either from
natural resources or the financing it needs. But Russia can f*ck the EU over big time by
cutting off natural gas exports. As the rabid mutt in Washington tries to go for broke,
Russia should keep diverting natural gas eastward. Let Uncle Scumbag save the EU with the
spare LNG he doesn't have.
Yes, the analogy between prewar Japan and Russia is false. It can be argued that it is
exactly the opposite. Russia has the resources that the West needs and if Russia were to cut
those off, the West could be induced to launch a war of desperation as Japan did. If Russia
is "walking on eggs" that is why.
Russia also can borrow whatever money it needs to from China. China probably has more than
enough to lend of its own, but if it does not, it is under no restrictions against borrowing
from western banks, and those banks have no control over how that money is reallocated.
I commented on the Pearl Harbour episode simply to make the point that the proposed sanctions
are a very aggressive move- this is clearly how the Russian government sees them, and rightly
so. If these sanctions clip a percent or so of Russian GDP growth for the foreseeable future
then they are very damaging for the country. Frankly, I would not be very sanguine about
Russia's long term future if it were not for China, and I continue to back Kraus's opinion
over Kirill's This earlier article by Aris sets the stage reasonably well- it's obvious
weakness is that the role of China is not taken into account
. http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russio-delenda-est-140787/?source=blogs
A further point. No matter how creative Russia's scientists and engineers might be, it
beggars belief to imagine that any country can compete technologically long term if largely
isolated by the rest of the World. Again, this further emphasizes how critical China is
likely to be for Russia's well being.
Russia needs China and China needs Russia if it wants to remain a sovereign nation.
I would add that the US is in a very fragile state burdened by a stagnate economy despite
massive deficit spending in addition to a crumbling global empire. Russia may simply need to
ride out the storm and let nature takes it course relative to the US.
The chimps in Congress can't see past their own noses and think that borrowing and debt is
what sustains the Russian economy. Their bubble of delusion has no bearing on Russian
reality. They are currently engaged in "the definition of insanity is to repeat the same
failed approach over and over and expect a different result". You can't cut Russia off from
western banks more than once and there is obviously no cumulative impact from such sanctions.
On what basis do you estimate 1% GDP growth reduction (or contraction?) for the foreseeable
future? Kraus needs to make a case and not just engage in proof by assertion. How can we have
the same restrictions to banking access that were imposed in 2014 all of the sudden starting
to matter now? That is just ludicrous. Cutting off access to NATzO banks in 2014 was the
limit of what NATzO could do. It can't go into Russia and shut down Russian banks to prevent
Russian companies from financing themselves there or from the Russian government.
Anyway, too much obscure mush and utter lack of details. These "mother of all sanctions"
are a joke because the 2014 sanctions did most of the "damage".
But for how long can the rest of the world (meaning, I suppose, the United States and western
Europe, which seem together to think they are The World) keep it up? Long enough to bring
Russia down? I frankly doubt it. America needs trade for its corporations to flourish and
expand market share, and it is not achieving that through sanctions and tariffs. The USA is
not just taking on Russia; it is making enemies everywhere. The global economy is so
interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block
all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe.
The present sanctions are lame and do not really do anything but get journalists excited
and use up paper. The sting is in the ones set to automatically go into effect in three
months, because to avoid them Russia must admit that it has a secret chemical-weapons
program, agree to shut it down and allow UN inspectors into the country to verify it has been
done. Perhaps Trump and his cabal gamble that Russia will cop to something it actually
doesn't have, just to avoid sanctions, as Gadaffi did. But Russia will not, while the
American attempt to bring more inconvenience and problems to the Russian people in an effort
to use them to bludgeon the government into doing Washington's bidding is about as shitty a
thing as America has ever done without involving weapons, since it offers no proof at all of
its conclusions. It is simply imposing collective punishment in order to get ts own way, and
would be the first to squeal if Russia did it.
"The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to
death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to
Russia) without hurting Europe."
"Like the Romans, the US has built a military-industrial economy that can massively
out-resource all its opponents' and so is impossible to defeat – a legacy of the rapid
militarisation during WWII when it simply out produced first the Nazis and then the Soviet
Union, the only other country on the planet at the time with any chance of matching the US's
industrial might"
Unlike the Reich the USA industrial base wasn't hampered by round the clock bombing from
the Eighth AirForce and the RAF , which also involved the diversion on billions of
Reichsmarks for thousands of planes and the Luftwaffe manpower in an attempt to stop or at
least mitigate the air attacks.
Likewise the USA industrial base was not hampered by having to -in a massive
undertaking-uproot its core manufacturing facilities and move them thousands of kilometers to
where they could be reassembled and resume production of machinery , armor and weaponry in
general.
Furthermore:
These are just a couple reasons for the fall of Rome, but what is perhaps most terrifying
about the fall are the corollaries to today. The Unites States of America has a Gini
coefficient of .45, and 40% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population.[5]
By every metric, the United States is even more divided and unfair than Rome before its fall.
The effects are perfectly evident as well as there is increasing inclination from the rich to
build fallout bunkers and withdraw from civilization and politics just as the roman elites
did centuries before. Worsening matters is the evidence of extreme racism towards migrant
workers who like slaves in Rome "take the labor from the hardworking middle class".
Increasingly the middle class shrinks as social unrest and bigotry grows. It is a scary
combination that, if we aren't careful, could spell the end of civilization as we know it,
just like it did for the Romans centuries before.
Therefore the Aris notion that USA can simply bide its time and wait for Russia to
collapse is suspect. If anything there may well be be a collapse but not Russia.
Agree with the sentiment but the Soviet Union outproduced the US in every industrial category
that mattered. Its military was much stronger than the US on land and in the air. On the sea,
the US probably had the edge.
The Soviet Union fell because its ideology provided no means to deal with psychos and
sociopaths. Religion, with all of its shortcomings, at least tried to address sociopathic
behaviors with such terms as sin, evil, etc. When religion left the building, there was
nothing left to stop the psychos and its kissing cousins, the Randites.
The West is immune from such dangers as it embraces sociopathyy. Russia, I believe, is
seeking a society that can withstand such assaults without heavy handed purges which only
provide temporary relief. The Orthodox Church ascendancy in modern Russia is helping to
provide that moral anchor to keep socciopathy from becoming the dominant world view. I think
even atheists can agree on the importance of its role in providing a stable and humane
society.
USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.
"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions
in response to the deadly attack.
The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it
used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that
the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation
of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own
nationals."
Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a
military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."
What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all
this pandering to western partners.
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not
even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial
body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to
Russia.
At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self
defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that
it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked
in the head.
It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic
relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly
all exports and imports.
So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on
Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its
aircraft manufacturing?
This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests
fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial
law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly
frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate
nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.
It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to
attack back.
Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.
Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this
pathway to outright confrontation
The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have
Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack.
In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.
Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and
starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across
his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with
an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and
Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like
that.
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular
pizza. I'd pay to see that.
Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia
in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof
that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that
because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement.
Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in
the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled
and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to
the CWC? That Russia?
I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence
as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority
under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty
unambiguous terminology there.
This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just
depressing.
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical
hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United
States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to
go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that
it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation
deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to
verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less
and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned the US that any sanctions targeting Russian banking
operations and currency trade will be treated as a declaration of economic war and retaliated
against by any means necessary.
" If they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency,
we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it
accordingly – economically, politically, or in any other way, if required ,"
Medvedev said during a trip to the Kamchatka region.
" Our American friends should make no mistake about it ," he emphasized.
"... Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago? ..."
I suppose few were under any apprehension that Trump would not sign the sanctions bill
reimposing American sanctions on Iran. Consequently, most will be unsurprised that he did so.
Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU –
remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute'
which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while
Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with
demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing,
if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts
must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such
authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to
allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national
courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year
ago?
I need hardly draw attention to the unmitigated and brazen arrogance of the stated US aim:
to "force the Iranians to the table for a renegotiation of their role in the Middle East".
They fucking live there, for God's sake, but the intent of the sanctions is to force them to
bow to American will, and accept the plans for them of a state which is more than 6,000 miles
away – yet insists on its right to direct and order regional affairs to its own
strategic and economic benefit.
Once upon a time, America's meddling in the Middle East could count on the support of all
the major western powers. For the time being, that practice is in abeyance, as the major
western allies try to bring about American failure. Goodwill toward the United States has
more or less evaporated completely, and America is increasingly regarded as an enemy by
former allies. I can't see any possibility of it prevailing, unless it starts a major war and
drags everyone into it. I can, however, see irreparable economic damage being inflicted on
the American economy.
If the EU will actually protect European companies from US enforcement/retaliation and compel
European companies to honor contracts with Iranian companies or government, that is big. But
why would they do such?
I speculate the US plan is to take Iranian oil off the market thereby driving up crude
prices. The downside is that it helps Russia (perhaps not a major concern for Trump) and
hurts China but it will be a boon for US oil frackers to the point of avoiding mass default
of loans and collapse of major US operations. If Nord Stream II can be stopped, US LNG may
surge as well assuming gas frackers can ramp up. And when Iran capitulates (in US dreams) US
companies will be granted special concessions to soak up Iranian oil revenues and the EU left
of the sidelines.
So the above could be some of the reasons for the EU's stiffening. Putin is probably
breaking out the popcorn.
The US has suddenly recollected that if it wants to take on China, it will actually need the
support of its traditional allies, and is supposedly launching a make-up effort, especially
where Europe is concerned.
Trump is such a boob; his policies are all over the place – first the hard-ass who
will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity. Anyone who would
willingly help that country achieve its goals needs their head examined, as it clearly will
turn on its traditional friends the instant it is unhappy with the relationship. Trump brags
that trade hardball is 'his thing', but that's just more of his stupid ego, and he appears to
not grasp many of its implications.
American farmers understand, though, all too well. It does not take a genius to figure
that a $12 Billion bailout fund suggests an assessment of a potential $12 Billion in damage
to the sector, which seems like a lot of money. But as agricultural economists correctly
deduce, the real damage is to long-term trade relationships, as customers repelled by
America's thug tactics turn to other suppliers. I already mentioned the new prominence in
Canadian supermarkets of identifying symbols to highlight Canadian products, and Canada is
the biggest export market by a considerable margin for American agricultural products. Canada
could not win in a trade war against the USA, but it could inflict serious damage on the
agricultural sector. Much of Canada is farm country just like south of the border, and all
the USA really has going for it in the way of growing-season advantage is California and
Florida. Products from there which are out of season in Canada can be purchased from Mexico.
Otherwise, pretty much anything you can grow in the USA, you can grow in Canada.
A very busy week indeed. It looks like the world is dividing into two alliances: those who
will follow the dictates on Iran and Russian sanctions and those who won't. We're in the
prelude to a long winter of a cold war or a very hot one, depending on how the USA chooses to
enforce those sanctions. Effectively at this point the upcoming sanctions would serve as the
equivalent of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of
us expected. The devil is never idle.
Miserable fat scheming twats like Karl Rove have nothing to look forward to on vacation
and so delight in poisoning everyone else's. There's a whole warren of similar rats in the
Trump administration and over at Langley which is why I mention Rove. While he's not in the
current administration, he's a very visceral representation of what the world is up against
until we put the neocons and PNACers out of business for good.
PS. I see nhs continues to post tracking links instead of direct links @7. b, I'd really
appreciate it (and the rest of the tech savvy audience here would too) if you'd ban tracking
links or more positively insist on direct links. Technically speaking all of nhs's posts
should be held as he's a serial offender. You can either clean his links for him (sounds like
as much fun as fixing his toilet for free) or just delete the comments which contain URL
shorteners (tracking links). The latter would make encourage him to clean up his act fast.
You'd be surprised how quickly inconsiderate, spying, spamming types like nhs would learn how
to post direct links.
" I don't quite get what their endgame is here .Why are they pushing a propaganda war
which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know
that there cannot ever be a real hot war?"
Most probably, because they are calculating that under various forms of psychological and
economic pressure Russia will crumble from within and surrender, just like in the times of
Gorbachev-Yeltsin, without having to fight a real, risk-filled war. Surrender and subjugation
without firing a shot – THAT'S their imagined endgame. "Why wouldn't what worked within
living memory, a mere 30 years ago, work again now in updated form?", they think –
especially since the Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than
the USSR of back then and the Russian rulers and society are not really too much different
psychologically from what they were back then, and are even mostly COMPOSED OF THE SAME
INDIVIDUALS? Is it really surprising that they think that way, given the continued existence
and thriving inside Russia of a powerful, openly seditious Fifth Column which is not
seriously combatted by either the Putin government or the stupid mass of the Russian populace
(who stand to lose the most, suffer terribly, and be reduced to colonized virtual serfs or
exterminated if the Fifth Columnists and their foreign masters succeed in crashing
Russia)?
Of course, IF this is a miscalculation (and I'm not sure that it is, given the current
weak, appeasing mentality of the Russian government and population), and the psychopathic
Western ruling elites don't manage to get a hold of their oversized lunatic egos and rein in
their arrogant hubristic belligerence – well, then the whole situation could devolve
pretty quick into a massive, WW I/WW II/Iraq/Serbia combination-type hot war scenario.
Except, this time, with the real probability of stepwise escalation from conventional
hostilities to Thermonuclear Holocaust.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia?
Russia may have struck a heavy blow already, when she dumped her holdings of U.S.
treasuries. The relatively small amount ($100 to $200 billion) may not have been significant,
but as a signal to the rest of the world it may have been loud. The new sanctions may be an
attempt to punish Russia for that. They won't work, of course, but the noise they generate
may help to obscure the import of Russia's recent action.
What I don't understand is why the US thinks Russia and China will continue to sanction North
Korea. It seems like the US is handing out straight razors to everybody and asking them to
slit each others throats. Except for Erdogan, they all seem to be saying, "Sure why not?"
Maybe they are simply accustomed to taking orders.
I agree with your analysis. In addition, President Putin does not want to ruin the US
economy as doing so could have catastrophic ripple effects across the globe. What he does
want is to neuter the US government so it cannot so easily continue to make war, which
indirectly will weaken the Israeli state to the same.
Those people who have their monies in sound, diversified investment houses (ie:
Schwab, Canada's TD Bank) will weather the financial storms but houses such as Glodman's
and all the other speculators will most likely lose everything while bankrupting most of
the US government itself.
If it goes far enough and and the US government under the current set of Republican
loons decide to shut down Social Security and Medicare under such stresses, it will most
likely be game over for the government at that point allowing the UN to come in a reorder
the mess the US has made of itself; hopefully under Russian directives...
That the 'storm' is coming, needs no elaboration, because this spending spree the US
has indulged in, can, on any REAL planet, simply not go on indefinitely, ...
...and Russia isn't the only country, divesting themselves of this highly toxic brew
of the US' 'reserve currency', other countries are doing it too, namely China.
If the grapevine is to be given any credence, Japan is ALSO trying, with ever greater
desperation, to divest themselves from the US dollar, but because their economy is so
much tighter strung to the US', this diversification isn't going to happen without some
major 'pains', ...
The ones, who are going to bear the brunt of the US financially collapse, ...like it
happened during the GFC, are the Europeans, Africans and South Americans, who's economies
aren't endowed with either such resilience, ...like the Russian economy, or with such
size, ...like the Chinese economy.
Sounds like they're preparing for the possibility that this will one more bit of ammo
that the US will use against Russia. If you recall, they've made noises about it in the
past. Putin's trying to cover against all possible infringements of Russian freedom and
business by doing this. It's a smart idea to get the companies using the alternative to
SWIFT before it becomes necessary. It is also good news that Russian companies and
civilians are not specifying dollars for their loans. Smart thinking!
Yes, the Russians took the lemons of the sanctions and made lemonade - re-creating
their exports by diversifying into agriculture, industrial and technological equipment,
meat, dairy and other items. As for tourism, they are rated very high with St. Petersburg
being high on the list of 'want to visit' cities. The World Cup brought the truth out to
fans of how great, friendly and safe the country is. I'm sure they'll survive whatever
the US throws at them with elan.
And they need to be. I don't see the US softening their attitude anytime soon. No
matter who wins the midterms, the loser will blame their loss on Russian meddling, so
this will continue on - we've got at least 2 more years of the shit, possibly 4 after
that, if Trump runs and wins again. I myself am tired of all this - it will only be the
loss of the dollar as world currency that ends this and that's started happening already
and will be speeding up as more sanctions and tariffs come into play worldwide.
"... Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - Russia is not giving up the dollar, because at the
moment it is the universal reserve currency to which there are no full-fledged
alternatives, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Russia is not abandoning the dollar, the dollar is the universal reserve currency.
The Euro could more or less claim that status, but not fully. Therefore, we are perfectly
aware what the dollar represents today," he said at a press conference on the results of
the BRICS summit in South Africa, answering the question on reduction of investments of
the Russian Federation in US Treasury bonds.
"As for the reserve currencies in general, regional reserve currencies already emerge.
In a sense, this is the role that the Russian ruble plays in relation to the CIS or
EurAsEC countries. But in general, any national currency is strong and good if it is
backed by an equally strong and good economy. We must proceed from these fundamental
facts", said the President.
...
... "
Russia wont drop a dollar, do drop a dollar means surrender to China...Putin wont
allow China to progress over Russia, Chinese economy dropping with the speed of light
anyway...
In reply to Dennis, I think he is right on all counts, but, in the end, the U.S.
national debt coupled with ten times the "unfunded liabilities" is going to completely
tank the dollar, and nothing short of Americans demanding our government beg to be
allowed in the now dozen or more "real, gold capitalized banks" of the world, and being
accepted only because we do have some gold, and it would be security, and at the same
time, the U.S. returning to "capitalism", not a form of trade, but natural law in the
realm of "value added trade", something socialists have had to learn the hard way, and in
teaching the lesson, our own considered themselves 'above that issue', never allowing
themselves to dream of what could, would, and has happened, the actual taking up of this
natural law, and re-securing world trade out of being manipulable by the power brokers,
bankers and central banks, and once again, answering to the singular stable value that
has served humanity for millennia.
There is a way, and reason for "allowing America" to join, we've taxed the whole of the
trading world with inflation since 48, we've reduced the dollar from 22.50 per ounce to
35.00 between 33 and 48, and from that to floating around 2000, depending on our
government's manipulations on commodities markets, and oil in particular, and the world
would be better off if it could recoup some or all of the pillage my government has done,
outside the country.
As to "buying gold while it is down, I've bought much silver, for security, at 22.00 an
ounce, later at 19.xx per, and recently, at 14.xx per, as nations sell off metals to
provide liquidity in their markets. The metals have real value, and we can only guess the
probable future value of the paper, so securing one's place on a continuous, ongoing pace
means one will get better value one week, and perhaps lesser value the next, but
regardless, all its value is secure, in a way paper never can be.
In the mid-19th century, a cattle rancher with history and reputation of honesty by long
practice, could scribble a note on the back of a shingle, a check, buying cattle, and the
person taking the shingle in exchange for a herd, could take the shingle to the town
bank, and get gold in the amount denoted on the rancher's signature on his, scrap wood
"check".
Gold and silver "certificates" were issued to make money more easily carried, but they
acclimated people to the idea paper can hold real value. The people, we, humans, forget,
all the value is in the words put on the paper, and trust in the Person upon whose
signature that value is secured by. Informal, on scrap paper, scribbled, we never forget
it merely represents a pile of gold, and we don't let just anyone trade a scrap of
shingle for a herd of cows, only those we know by experience, we, personally, can trust.
We can never trust fancy printed paper, special, illegal to make, except the one who
makes it for money, and we should know by the kind of paper, the fancy special ink, and
the "flourishes", it was never intended to represent money, but to replace it on its
face, without having to carry the real value, which then can be kept, stolen, when paper
is lawful to own, and gold is not.
Satan didn't tell Eve "you won't die, God lied to you", he merely asked, "surely you
won't die?", implying God must love her too much to fulfill His word. The lie was all in
Eve's mind, Satan merely gave her opportunity to lie to herself, and our monopoly money
system is exactly the same kind, and form of enticement to lie, that puts the onus of the
lie upon ourselves, in accepting pretend money.
All great lies are made by those desirous of the power, or wisdom, wealth, ease, but
don't wish to fulfill God's promise, "you will earn your daily bread by the sweat of your
brow", but know so many who will fall for deceit in hopes of getting something more than
they earned. Those who doggedly tie their lives, their honor, and their fortunes to God,
and their faith, won't fall for the game, and are the exact enemies of the evil, because
they prove the truth and the lie in their everyday work.
America has walked a long dark way down that broad and wide path, and we are right close
to the point of no return. I don't know which side of that point we're on, time will
tell, but I pray we are short, and can still be saved if we choose to turn to right.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro ,NC, USA
Those who are looking for a swift collapse of the dollar will probably be mistaken.
Instead a whole series of events is gradually eroding its world power. These events
include the rise of China as the world supremo of trade, the increasing isolationism of
the US in world trade and diplomacy, and the need for US to keep increasing its Fed rate
which in turn makes its debt servicing more unsustainable
Russia pays the [huge] cost of remaining a nation, a civilization and a state ~Vladimir
Putin.
Putin Slams US: "The Biggest Mistake Russia Ever Made Was To Trust You"
This is a clear attempt top abuse the dominant position of the USA in the world. For Russian
this is powerful blow in the torso, Will it be knockdown remains to be seen. Also as a weaker
party Russia can's afford a powerful counterstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... "Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" ..."
"Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth,
hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the
one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans
of Washington and its chihuahuas"Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 14 hours
ago | 2,909
85 More sanctions
from the USA using the Skripal affair as an excuse without a shred of evidence, based on hype,
hysteria and hearsay. Back-door economic warfare.
Surprise, surprise. The USA invokes a law from the 1990s claiming that it has to impose
sanctions when a country crosses a chemical or biological line, in this case an invisible one
with no proof, no law case, no due legal process, just an allegation from wonderful British
intelligence that the Kremlin was involved in the Skripal case. Proof? None actually...none at
all. Just a vague blanket statement along the lines of "They have done it before and they have
said they will take out traitors and in the absence of any plausible alternative, they must be
guilty". For Washington, after months of vacillating, stating the obvious that it is very
complicated to apportion the blame when nobody knows which novichok was used, where it was
produced and in the total absence of any trail linking it to the Kremlin, we get the idea that
we are looking yet again at the wonderful British intelligence of the type that Colin Powell
used to justify the USA's illegal and murderous act of butchery against Iraq. The type of
intelligence which resembles a decade-old doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the net and
sexed up by Downing Street.
And here they are again, the dynamic duo. Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of
truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to
derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil
hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas.
Drawing the time line at the beginning, let us analyze what is happening and let us see the
movie developing from a distance. The political system in vogue at present is the corporatist
model controlled by the $inister $ix $isters which control the policies of Washington and its
chihuahuas, namely the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, Pharma/DrugS Lobbies). The
BARFFS live off resources and as history has shown us when they have none themselves, they
invade countries and steal them. Ask Africa, the victim of a silent Holocaust which claimed
seventy million lives.
Russia for them is kosher when it is ruled by something that bends over when told to and
allows foreigners to steal the country's resources. Russia for them is not kosher when someone
like Putin comes along, slams his fist on the table and says loud and clear that Russian
resources are for Russians, managed by Russians. What the BARFFS want is to see Russia divided
up into, say, one hundred micro-states each one with a BARFFS-friendly government allowing
foreigners to syphon off the vast resources of this country.
The game starts with promises made to the then-USSR about friendly relations, about NATO not
encroaching eastwards, about a new world order based on partnership. It then quickly morphs out
of control with the help of the media, using buzz-words and expressions such as "collapse of
the Soviet Union" (absolute nonsense, it did not collapse, it transformed from the Union to the
Commonwealth as per the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution, without consulting the people,
or has everyone forgotten that?). There then ensued acts of provocation in the Balkans, and
then in Russia itself (Chechnya), then on Russia's frontiers.
Before Georgia in 2008 we had a spectacular example of war crimes and an illegal invasion of
Iraq to test the waters, where military hardware was deployed against civilian structures,
where fields of cereals were strafed by NATO aircraft to starve families, where Depleted
Uranium was deployed leaving swathes of territory poisonous; beforte this we had the illegal
interference in the Republic of Serbia, backing terrorists (Ushtria Çlirimtare ë
Kosovës, UÇK or KLA) and the illegal act of kidnapping and subsequent
manslaughter/murder of Slobodan Milosevich, who died in custody while being held illegally and
without being found guilty of any of the crimes leveled against him.
With Georgia we had another act of provocation in which Georgian forces attacked Russian
peacekeepers in South Ossetia and were building up to do the same in Abkhazia, territories
which under the Soviet Constitution had necessarily to have status referendums on which way the
people wanted to go and into which Republic they should integrate. Georgia refused to hold
these referendums.
And since Georgia we had Libya, a shocking act of barbarity in which NATO interfered in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, sending the country with the highest Human Development
Index back into the dark ages, fragmented and crawling with terrorists. Not to mention
Afghanistan, started in 2001 and ongoing, where "allied" troops are photographed guarding opium
fields, where opium production has risen and where Talebaan fighters are seen escorting NATO
convoys, paid, like WTF?... and not to mention Syria, in which the same side once again allied
itself with terrorists as it did in Libya, terrorists which raped little girls before and after
they were beheaded, which raped nuns savagely in every orifice of their bodies, which impaled
little boys on stakes and which ripped the hearts out of Syrian soldiers and bit into them.
So we see what we are up against. And if all that were not enough today we have the idiotic
acts of provocation in the Baltic where a handful of NATO soldiers are cavorting around like
toy soldiers claiming to keep their countries safe. From what? Jupiter? Ah and yes, we have
Ukraine as the latest act of provocation.
It started off well before the so-called protests in Independence Square, Kiev with
subversion and organization of protesters who took to the streets in November 2013 and in late
February 2014, shots were fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine on the protesters in the
square below to create a "cause", the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal
coup, massacres were perpetrated against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (this story seems to have
disappeared from the Western media) and Fascists shouted slogans such as "Death to Russians and
Jews". As a reaction, Russian-speaking Ukrainians defended themselves in South-East Ukraine and
in the absence of the due legal force in the Republic of Crimea, the Legislative Assembly, now
the organism with due legal force, organized a referendum on status and over ninety per cent of
the population (Russians) voted to reintegrate Russia. It's called Democracy. Maybe Washington
and its chihuahuas should try it some time.
What the BARFFS wanted Russia to do was to roll over, drop its pants and say "sock it to me,
babe". With another leader, that might have happened. Not with Putin. So now we have instead,
economic warfare with sanctions, more sanctions and increased sanctions, trying to tie a knot
around Russia's throat and tightening it, now linking Crimea to Abkhazia to South Ossetia, to
state-sponsored terrorism without a shred of respect for the law and the facts. It is by now
crystal clear what the West wants.
It wants to strangle the Russian economy to create unrest in Russia and create political
movements against Putin. It then wants to instal a west-friendly government which will see
Russia fragmented, sooner or later, into a myriad of republics, each one with their resources
controlled by foreigners.
That is what the sanctions are about. Let us see whose side God is on.
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war
was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the
bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a
fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers
and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they
swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with
stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest
intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in
the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of
Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which
moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured
to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a
stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of
sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church
was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams --
visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing
sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the
surrender!
Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of
glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors
and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to
win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a
war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed
by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with
glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate
pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an
ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers,
and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in
the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong
and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and
to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his
eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet,
his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy
face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and
wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side
and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence,
continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent
appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of
our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled
minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound
audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he
said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the
house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the
prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I,
His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import.
For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who
utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed
his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one
uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all
supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would
beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon
your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which
needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor's crop which
may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by
God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you
in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant
that it was so! You heard the words 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is
sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for
many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow
it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He
commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be
Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our
beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody
shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of
fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help
us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in
summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee
for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract
their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain
the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble
and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of
the Most High waits."
--
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in
what he said.
The rest of the world needs to rally around Russia. Regular Americans have no voice in
this insanity. Contacting Representatives/Senators does no good. The neocons, run by you
know who, seek to destroy Russia b/c they can't control Putin. The neocons are
psychopaths and care not about US or other lives nor even the interests of citizens -
they want war. Hope Putin can dodge this with China and the other BRICS.
http://theduran.com/us-sanc...
Hitler's plan for Russia was called "General Plan Ost."
After being conquered, the country up to and including the western third of Siberia was
to be carved up into a series of administrative regions like "Muscovy", "Ukraine" and
others, and exploited. The remaining two thirds of Siberia was to be given to Japan.
There was a special plan for Crimea because of its favourable climate. Cities like
Leningrad and Moscow were simply to be erased as serving no useful purpose in the Plan.
Moscow was to be submerged under an artificial lake.
The population of 200 million was to be reduced by "natural" means, ie starvation.
Different figures were given of the numbers who would have to die. 45 million, initially.
But ultimately only 15 million young Russian men and women would need to be retained as
slave labour.
The country would be comprehensively looted and run as a resource colony, supplying its
colonial overlords with grain, oil, timber and metal ores.
Of course, in the event the Plan was never carried out. Things didn't quite work out
according to the power point presentation. But like they say, it's the thought that
counts.
The western plan for the Russian Federation is broadly similar, except in the details.
They probably wouldn't bother submerging Moscow in an artificial lake. These plans came
very close to being realised and put into effect in 1941 and 1991. That these things did
not come to pass is not the result of any natural law. If circumstances had been slightly
different, all these things would now be part of the historical record. Maybe if the
weather had not been so severe in 1941. Or if German leadership and planning had been
slightly better. Or if some quisling stooge had come to power after the 1990s instead of
Putin. Any of these things could easily have happened. And Russia would just have been a
half forgotten memory, like the ancient civilisations of Central and South America.
And that is why Russia needs to stop referring to its "western colleagues and
partners."
What Russia is like today, with it's leader Vladimir Putin ,was meant to be .I firmly
believe this.
From the Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce sometime in the 1930's
"Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is
sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism -- no! But freedom -- freedom! That each
man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will
take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of
the world." ~ Edgar Cayce
You could be right, but Russia has had some disastrous leaders in the past - Yeltsin,
Gorbachev, going back to Kerensky, or Tsar Nicholas. Not necessarily evil or corrupt,
maybe well meaning, but disastrous leadership. Imagine if someone of that kind was at the
helm now, someone like Merkel/ Macron/ May. It could have happened, and Russia would be
just like Ukraine today...
"Bring Them on and Let's See Whose Side God Is On!"
LOL, sounds like Erdogan who recently said "They have Dollars, we have our God".
Funny social media comments followed, such as; "Maybe God should be appointed our
economy minister". .. "As if 'they' don't have any God"... "Is God a Turk?" (which is
funny because "Allah" is an Arab God).
But religious people are totally unable to question; only they believe in the right
religion, in the right God and only they are God's favorite people. Everybody else is
doomed.
Russia must learn to counter the sanctions threat. If sanctions result in Russia
correcting the errors in how her money system functions (these all stemming from the
world banking monopoly which only ever issues money as an ever-increasing and ever more
dragonian burden on nations and people) then it will lead to prosperity based on Russia's
own vast natural resources, her own increasing production capacities and the material
requirements of her people. When Russia sweaps aside all the lies that the global banking
monopoly relies upon Russia will not only be truly free and prosperous, it will lead the
rest of the world in a better and more secure economic future.
Sanctions on Russia is of lesser importance than interest level
Let us say sanctions increase machinery cost for a farmer with 10%, so a $50,000 machine
will cost $55,000. That is $500 per year (downpayment 10 years)
While 1% interest on $500,000 (all his debt) is like $5000. Today's 15% interest on
$500,000 will be $75,000 per year.
Farmers need more sanctions anyway
Japan was loaded down with so many sanctioned that it had no choice but to attack
Hawaii. That was the plan after all - but the American people never found out about it
till - Now. Russia has more than a few hundred - Zero's to attack its enemy with. It's
another Washington game and once again the people of the US - are out to lunch.
The American people are brainwashed by their media about all this. They are swallowing
the lies b/c they don't get enuf alt media and even there, not enuf is reported. Most
still believe Crimea was militarily taken over by Russia. Keep getting the truth out.
God favors truth,I don't expect the racists blinded in their zeal,can concieve the
virtues of the real deal christain faith,not for the faint minded,nor them purists who
assume justice is easier said then done!
General Grant, who participated in the war against Mexico as a junior officer, said he
believed the Civil War was God's inevitable punishment for that act of illegal
aggression.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case
Unless you are talking that angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty, pedophilic "god", of the
Babylonian End of Times Death Cult.
Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end.
Putin and Trump are in bed with the pedophile evil of Israhell!
So it is obvious, the "God" which WASHINGTON DC/USA, Moscow and the Russian Orthodox
Church serves, is not the God, who is the Father, of Jesus the Christ, who did not say
crawl in bed with the Holocausting pedophiles!
Maybe Moscow's/ USA/WASHINGTON DC's God's name is Shekels.
"Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end".
Now John, as your friend who agrees and sympathizes with your righteous anger, surely
that's not exactly what he said? As I recall, he warned that it would better for such
people if they were drowned. The implication seems to be that God will punish them
severely - either now or, more likely, in the afterlife.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
All the Jews are screaming Fascist today
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case !
They are trying with all their deceptive stupidity,to project an image of Israhell
that is totally false. The little poor innocent insignificant Israhell that hurts no one
and minds its own business. Deception and evil is in their dna.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
I believe Russia sees the sanctions for what they are. A crude attempt to
provoke them into a hasty reaction. It is virtually certain they won't react in a childish or inconsidered way.
Paul Craig Roberts is well behind the curve when it comes to what is
believed about the west in Russia politics.
A clue might be in the fact they have just
reduced their $ reserves to 14 billion, down from nearly 200 4 or so years ago.
Like Iran,
the Russians know the U.S.A. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as
classy.
"... Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. ..."
"... The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war. ..."
"... I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave. ..."
"... Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe. ..."
"... Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again. ..."
"... Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order. ..."
"... Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about. ..."
The Trump administration is hitting Russia with new sanctions punishing President Vladimir
Putin's government for using a chemical weapon against an ex-spy in Britain, U.S. officials
told NBC News Wednesday.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated
international law by poisoning the former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in March,
officials said, a decision that was announced Wednesday afternoon by State Department.
The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis.
A second, more painful round kicks in three months later unless Russia provides "reliable
assurances" that it won't use chemical weapons in the future and agrees to "on-site
inspections" by the U.N. -- conditions unlikely to be met. The second round of sanctions
could include downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending state airline Aeroflot's ability
to fly to the U.S, and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.
Section 7 covers the sanctions that are to be imposed, which consist of initial sanctions,
and further sanctions to be imposed after 90 days if there is no compliance on the country's
part.
Initial sanctions : Ban on foreign assistance, arms sales, denial of US credit, and
exporting national security sensitive goods. (Most of this is already functionally in place
with respect to Russia).
Further sanctions : Ban on multilateral bank assistance [e.g. IMF, World Bank, the EBRD,
etc], ban on US bank loans, a near total export ban (except food and agricultural commodities)
and import ban, downgrade or suspension of US diplomatic relations, revocation of landing
rights to air carriers controlled by the government of the sanctioned country.
Reuters has a US State Department official saying that the sanctions
would not apply to Aeroflot, which some commenters have
qualified as backtracking. But I think that the official was merely talking of the initial
sanctions.
How does Russia go about removing the sanctions? The President will need to "certify" to
Congress that the country in question: (1) Has made "reliable assurances", and is not making
preparations, to use chemical/biological weapons in violation of international law, or against
its own citizens; (2) is willing to allow on-site inspections by UN observers to confirm the
above; (3) is making restitutions to the victims of its chemical/biological weapons usage.
This would basically require Russia to admit guilt for the Skripal poisoning and subject
itself to the inspections regimes that the US typically tries to force on "rogue states." In
other words, it is out of the question.
Moreover, even in the theoretical possibility that this goes through, it's not like
President Trump's "certification" will be worth anything amidst the Russiagate hysteria.
Another possibility to avoid the near cessation of trade between the US and Russia is to
have the President "waiver" the application of individual sanctions, if he can determine and
certify to Congress that doing so is necessary for the national security interests of the US;
or that there has been "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies" of the sanctioned
country. In either case, the President needs to provide a report to Congress explaining his
detailed rationale for the waiver, and listing steps the sanctioned country is taking to
satisfy the "removal of sanctions" clause.
The newspaper Kommersant has published a full draft of the proposed "Defending American
Security from Kremlin Aggression Act," which demands a U.S. investigation into Vladimir
Putin's personal wealth and whether Russia sponsors terrorism, and would impose a ban on U.S.
citizens buying Russian sovereign debt, though the U.S. Treasury publicly opposed this idea
in February, warning that it would disrupt the market broadly. Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham, one of the initiative's sponsors, says one of the draft legislation's goals is to
impose "crushing sanctions."
[Sanctions to include:]
* Banning the banks . The draft bill proposes banning Russia's biggest state banks --
Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, or Vnesheconombank -- from
operating inside the United States, which would effectively prevent these institutions from
conducting dollar settlements.
* Oil and gas . In the energy sector, the legislation would impose sanctions on investment
in any projects by the Russian government or government-affiliated companies outside Russia
worth more than $250 million. Businesses would also incur penalties for any participation
(funding or supplying equipment or technology) in new oil projects inside Russia valued above
$1 million.
* Lists and research . If the bill is submitted in its current form and adopted, the U.S.
president would have 180 days to begin implementing its provisions; within 60 days of
adoption, the White House would need to provide a new list of Russian individuals suspected
of cyber-attacks against the United States; the Treasury Department would have 180 days to
update its "Kremlin list" of Russian state officials and oligarchs; the director of national
intelligence would be tasked with completing a "detailed report on the personal net worth and
assets" of Vladimir Putin and his family; and the State Department would have 90 days to
determine whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
* A new Sanctions Office . In order to shore up the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act, the draft legislation would also create an "Office of Sanctions
Coordination" within the State Department to coordinate work with the Treasury.
(1) The bill's sponsors, which include Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, and Ben Cardin,
preface their text with a call for President Trump to demand Russia stop interference in US
"democratic processes", return Crimea to the Ukraine, stop supporting the separatists in East
Ukraine, as well the "occupation and support of separatists" in the territories of Georgia and
Moldova, and support for Bashar Assad, who continues to commit "war crimes."
(2) They note that the general drift of the document is towards a consolidation of separate
anti-Russian sanctions, from the "Ukrainian" to the "cyber" ones, into a "single
mechanism."
(3) Subject to a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the bill also includes a ban on financing "direct
or indirect" steps, that have as their goal to support the attempts of "any US government
official" to take the country out of NATO. Every 90 days, the US Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Defense Minister, would be required to present a report to the relevant
committees in Congress about "threats to NATO", which would include attempts to weaken US
commitments to the alliance. Considering Trump's ambiguous feelings on NATO, this part is
primarily aimed at Trump himself.
(4) There are calls to "pressure" Russia from interfering with UN and the OPCW attempts to
investigate chemical weapons usage, as well as to "punish" Russia for producing and using
chemical weapons. This directly syncs this sanctions bill to the previous one.
The report concludes that it's not yet clear how to interpret this. In the worse case, it
could be a "preliminary application" for a UN campaign to exclude Russia from the Security
Council; alternatively, it could just be a "pragmatic" run-up to merely invoking great
sanctions, as with Iran in 1983.
***
I suppose we now also know why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion
from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
For comparison,
the last time such a drawback happened (but which only lasted three weeks) was in the
immediate aftermath of Crimea.
The last time Russia pulled such a large sum out of the U.S. was just after the annexation
of Crimea in 2014, when the central bank withdrew about $115 billion from the New York Fed,
Reuters reported last year, citing two former Fed officials. Most of that money was returned
a few weeks later, after it became clear that the scope of initial U.S. sanctions would be
narrower than the Kremlin expected, according to the news service.
But I suppose this drawdown would now be permanent, since it is increasingly evident that
Iran-tier sanctions on Russia are now on the horizon.
These sanctions are either going to steadily creep in – or rush in like a tsunami if
there is a Blue Wave in 90 days, or if Trump was to be removed.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly
punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the
economic output. Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
Moreover, as I have pointed out , Russia has
plenty of surprising ways to hurt the US as well. For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to
the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia,
period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature
– to impose fines and prison time
on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window.
Some questions we should now be asking include:
1. Precisely how far is the US prepared to go? Cutting off its own trade with Russia is one
thing – penalizing foreign companies that do business with Russia is something else. As
Ben Aris
notes , the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg
Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market. The
ideological Russiagaters need to balance their PDS/TDS against the pecuniary practicalities of
catering to finance and oil & gas interests and their lobbies.
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions
against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how
deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This sounds very close to a declaration of war. USA is beginning to throw everything it has
behind economic warfare and go "all in" forcing even its closest allies to either suffer
serious sanctions for not joining the economic attacks or to inflict self-harm by limiting
trade with Russia, Iran, and anyone else the US chooses to declare economic warfare upon.
I don't believe that this set of circumstances can continue indefinitely without a serious
realignment or a degeneration into "kinetic" warfare.
Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum
is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last
man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide
of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Putin and the rest of Russian
leadership.
It is clear to anyone with a brain that the US "sanctions" on Russia have zero chance of
changing Russia's stance on any international issues of consequence. Crimea is a good
example: it will return to Ukraine the day after the Hell freezes over. On the same date
Georgia gets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and US-sponsored Islamic bandits win over Assad in
Syria. Thus, The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's
hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war.
I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid
for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal.
I agree. They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack"
on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get
psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep
drifting towards actual war.
There is also a lot of projection going on here: the Americans obviously perceive their
own election meddling as war by other means, and so they accuse their enemies with the very
same thing.
Russia is far too integrated in to the wider European economy, and Russia is too stronk for
sanctions to do anything. See Nord Stream II. Ignore the Israel lobby sanctions, not even the
corrupt congress critters could vote for those.
I have no idea why these new meaningless sanctions have been conjured up, maybe the Rand
Paul letter has the answer, maybe not. I think we may have some answers after the
midterms.
I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is
more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes
of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave.
Now that it is within the realms of reasonable debate, if there were a nuclear war between
the USA and Russia what targets would be hit? Would Russia hit puppet regimes such the UK,
France or Poland? Would the USA hit Iran (because if they are going to hit Russia they might
as well get Iran in there as well).
If say only Russian and USA were hit, how much of the nuclear fallout would affect
Europe?
Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of
AIPAC should be accountable.
Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has
reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a
hostile act by Europe.
Russia today is in a much better position to withstand sanctions. Global oil investments have
been lagging for half a decade due to low prices, and this will inevitably show up in the
coming years.
Russia in 2014 was battered by a twin storm, of which the oil price collapse was in fact far
worse. That factor is now gone.
Furthermore, a planned VAT rise next year will mean that the break-even oil price for the
Russian budget will fall to $50 after $60 this year and $67 last year, according to Alfa
Bank's analysis . Steady, impressive
improvement. So even in an event of an unexpected oil price decline, Russia is far more
prepared this time around.
Additionally, over the last 4 years, Russia's economy has indigenised to a much greater
extent than before. This is especially the case in the financial markets. Russia is simply a
lot less reliant on foreign funding. Bershidsky wrote about how more and more Russian
companies are leaving UK capital markets and returning to Russia. This process will continue
but it has already yielded results. As a country with a large current account surplus, tamed
inflation, an incredibly strong fiscal state, there is indeed very little that the US can do,
which is probably why they are reaching with ever-greater desperation.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be
partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi
has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again.
India has
always bristled at being treated as a close ally rather as a 'partner'. It has cherished it's
non-aligned movement legacy and its historically close relations to Russia. It is unlikely to
want to give up on that in order to become a subservient lapdog to US interests in the manner
that the EU has degraded itself.
China's AIIB is a good start, but the full range of new institutions must bear fruit. Some
of the BRICS ideas are good but ultimately both Brazil and South Africa are too unimportant.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Turning to Europe. Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely
– then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the
US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the
non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world
order.
America now has a "good cop, bad cop" with Trump and Congress.
Congress puts in more sanctions, but there is constraint responding too much because Trump
seems friendly, and you don't want to alienate him. Trump himself doesn't care about the sanctions, because he thinks it is leverage that he
can lift them later.
There was an article a few months ago that Trump is actually worse than Obama – even
in Obama did not supply direct weapons to Ukraine.
I think Trump plans to remove the sanctions in the next year and improve the relations
– but without any kind of timetable (his meeting with Putin is delayed already to next
year).
OT: The Turkish lira is now the worst-performing currency this year, bar none.
Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while
pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say
Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly
doesn't give two hoots about.
Turkey was not entirely foolish to believe this strategy could work. Pakistan during the
reign of Islamist military dictator Zia ul-Haq, used a similar strategy during the 1980s. He
empowered the mullahs and moved Pakistan decidedly to the hard-right in religious/cultural
terms while massively opening up the economy to speculative finance, thereby pleasing
Washington. Saudi Arabia has used this policy for a long time. For those who knew this, the
revelation that the US funded some of the most extremist "moderate" rebels in Syria came as
no shock.
So perhaps it isn't the Islamism in of itself which is the problem in Erdogan's case. What
could it be? Well, one clue is the case of Pastor Brunson. The good pastor, who under house
arrest in Turkey, is accused to be close to the Gülen cult. The official line in the
Western MSM is that Trump is trying to appease evangelicals before the midterms. I don't buy
that. He has them in the bag regardless. Gülen himself, some of you might recall, still
lives in the US despite repeated pleas from Turkey to give him back. Which is the unreliable
ally here? Curiously, Gülen's religious bent is even more Islamist than Erdogan's. He's
also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
At any rate, the demand from the US has been for Turkey to release Brunson
unconditionally. Erdogan's media has speculated that Brunson was slated to become CIA chief
in Turkey had the 2016 coup come to pass. Obviously, Turkey does not want to release him
unconditionally: it makes them look extremely weak. Well, they now got hit where it hurts.
Indeed, Trump even tweeted out new sanctions news today even as Erdogan was delivering a
speech. I don't happen to believe in coincidences. The result is that the lira lost close to
a quarter of its value in a single day. I haven't even mentioned Turkey's apparent interest
in the S-400 missile system among other matters. This, I think, is what truly irked D.C.
rather than Erdogan's human rights record or "authoritarianism", which is just the
pretext.
Make no mistake: the decline of the lira was structural from the beginning. Turkey's large
CAD made it extremely vulnerable to financial speculation from the getgo. It has now paid
that price. But this does not preclude the fact that countries which are overtly reliant on
Western financial flows to fund large current account deficits should forgo the lesson that
there is no free lunch. Erdogan made this cardinal error. Poland is not nearly as vulnerable,
but we're also in the same orbit. This is why I always laugh at the Poland Stronk memes. It's
also why I dismiss the criticism against Orban that he plays all sides, including taking
money from the EU, as politically naïve. Very few countries in this world can reliably
be called truly independent. Russia is in the process of becoming one. So is China. India is
not quite there, but it has the potential. The rest of us will simply have to balance
hegemons, while reminding ourselves of our inherent vulnerability. If we forget that, then we
just had a textbook example of what happens when we overestimate our hand, playing out in
front of our very eyes today.
Good to hear something sensible from Polish Perspective (in every sense of this
expression). I know some Poles, who tend to be reasonable people, so the policies of Polish
government always amazed me. Then again, if Polish democracy is similar to the US, the
opinions of the people don't matter at all.
There is still a long way to go before Russia, China, or any other country frees itself
from the clutches of dollar-based financial system. However, an alternative might look
parallel at the beginning, but it won't be parallel for long. Thing is, the US dollar and the
US sovereign debt have become essentially Ponzi schemes. If Russia, China, and a few others
create a "parallel" system, dollar-based Ponzi scheme folds, as the US does not have
sufficient assets to support the dollar or pay off its debt. The fall of the Empire will
likely be violent. The only thing we can hope for is that the humanity survives it.
As to EU, it missed every chance of becoming something with a spine. Too late now. In
fact, what French president once said about Arafat (he never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity) applies to the EU with a vengeance.
I suppose we now also now why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15
billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
You're making the Kremlins look smarter than they actually are. They should have done this
4 years ago. What I want to know is what happened to the proceeds from the sale? CBR data
shows that value of "foreign exchange" held by the CBR hasn't declined:
Now I can't use the Export-Import Bank insure the export of American-made products from a
swing state to Russia. Really Making America Great Again! Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Regarding India, they are asking America for a permission to keep buying Russian weapons.
Asking for a sanctions "waiver" – this is just sad. India also agreed to reduce imports
of Iranian oil. So, perhaps, not so independent anymore.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth. But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil,
our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Rohrabacher is a flake and blowhard as well. If he were in the running for Secretary of
State, he could just as easily flip and become militantly anti-Russian in order to impress
people in Washington. Appearing tough on foreigners in front of one's peers in Washington is
their prime motive. They've been like this since before the Vietnam War era.
Obviously a good read overall, but there was this one part that I found particularly well,
interesting, and actually quite surprising:
"Moreover, the mid-2020s will also see a massive influx of electric vehicles into the
global car fleet, which could lead to a final collapse in oil prices. There was practically
no real diversification: the number of industrial robots per worker in Russia is at the
level of Iran and India. Meanwhile, "effective managers" like Sechin turned out to be so
effective that Rosneft's debts exceed the value of the company itself from this year. An
acute economic crisis in a few years is almost inevitable. "
So I'm clearly not even entirely sure whether that translation is accurate, but it really
seems like you're kind of suddenly much more pessimistic on the Russian economy. Or is that
just the "best-case" scenario for Russian nationalists?
Didn't you rate Putin's "economic management" reasonably highly not a long time ago, just
before the Presidential elections? Of course compared to the situation in 2000, but
still.
You've also pointed out several times that Russia's oil dependency has been considerably
exaggerated. Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
Jon Hellevig's research and numbers as well (GDP share of oil & gas, the consolidated
budget, etc). And Polish Perspective's comment above.
So shouldn't the repeat of 2014 be kind of unlikely, if not impossible? At this rate,
Russia's remaining oil dependency should already be considerably lower by the mid-20s,
despite all those technological limitations.
You don't believe in an annual growth of 3% anymore? You seriously think there will be an
"acute crisis" in a few years?
I actually just read that even the always (or atleast recently) conservative/pessimistic
Russian authorities (in this case, the Economic Development Ministry) forecast a growth rate
of atleast around 3% beginning from 2021, after the VAT hike, some other "reforms" and
increasing spending.
At the same time, Trump his helping to push the Turkish economy off a cliff with his Twitter
account. Russia and Turkey find themselves in the same boat. So?
Israel and Netanyahu responsible for American sanctions on Russia, conspiracy makes less
sense to me than the others I read here (Israel responsible for killing Kennedy, etc). Why do
Israel want to impose American sanctions on Russia?
This week's sanctions mainly targeting Russian airlines. Aeroflot is about to buy 30
Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.
In Israel, Aeroflot is the third airline, and Israeli government pays it direct subsidies
to reduce the ticket prices for places like Eilat. They allow Aeroflot to put giant Aeroflot
commercial posters along the roads and skyscrapers.
According to the news earlier in the year, Israel is negotiating to join a customs union
with the Eurasian Economic Union. How will they reconcile their own actions, with being the
one responsible for America to sanction Russia? It would be very competent 4 dimensional
chess, from people who cannot even count their illegal immigrants or deport a single illegal
immigrant, or coordinate their nationality policy with a few thousand druze. While making
America sanction Russia has no benefit for them, deporting illegal immigrants, or
coordinating with Druze has important benefits for them (yet supposedly they can do the
former, but not the latter).
At the same time, they do the opposite of sanctioning themselves.
Also if this is the case, how in Russia, nobody in the expert community is aware Israel is
responsible for the sanctions. Instead the media celebrate when it still wants to export
carrots. And if any of the Kremlin top think relations with Israel are bad, then why is
Israel allowed to operate freely in Russia.
If explanation is to do with Syria – it also does not fit. Intervention in Syria was
presented as something which would encourage West to remove its sanctions.
For Israel, Russian-American alliance would improve the situation in the region. And also
probably for Turkey and the Arabs.
Israel is terrified with an increase of Iran in Syria. The reality is that is that both
Russia and America is going to reduce presence in Syria, and Iran is going to increase it.
The problem of Russia in Syria for Israel, is that Russia's presence is only minimal, and
will allow Iran on the ground to take over the same territories that Russia helps secure for
Assad. In the current equation and stage of the war, they will be hoping Russia increases its
presence and reduces the need for Iranian forces. Problem of Assad for them is his only to
the extent of his relation with Iran, not with Russia.
Before the Trump-Putin summit, the Mueller involved FBI indicted 12 Russians, knowing full
well that they'd not be turned over to the US. This latest round of sanctions comes right
after Rand Paul's trip to Moscow, for the purpose of seeking closer US-Russian relations.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He
leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're
Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian
government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two
birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure
on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian
government.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions.
Seconded. Washington is too much in love with their sanctions.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
It's up to 50% of the federal budget in recent years, is funded by oil and gas revenue,
although in low oil price years the proportion can fall (to lower 40s%).
When the proportion falls, then you are by definition financing a federal budget in other
ways, which are usually less politically popular.
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
Raising pension age (as needs to often be repeated to people) is necessary and reasonable,
but raising VAT is a bad thing as in most countries.
Karlin is probably too pessimistic about oil price demand peaking in 2020s (demand for oil
probably peaking in the 2030s).
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms, reduction of size of government
sector, increase in proportion of private sector in many areas, investment in education for
future industries.
Having Russia go pirate on US copy-rite laws could be interesting. Do you think the US would
build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they
actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days
with Napsternik?
Russia might even make some headway with Pirate Party types. Information belongs to the
people, comrades! Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of
Linux.
Looks like these sanctions will force their hand: their new narrowbody airliner was going
to have pratt and witney engines with the aviadvigatel ones only for government planes. Not
sure what the exact reasons for this were: p&w ones have a slightly higher bypass ratio,
it allows international buyers to utilise existing service infrastructure or aviadvigatel's
ability to mass produce might be crap. If the us imposes a complete export ban they'll all
have to have them.
Russia's current widebody airliner is pretty much obsolete though.
Aeroflot had benefited from collapse of Transaero. They're getting 35 planes (all Airbus and
Boeing models) from the Transaero fleet and are putting them into Aeroflot fleet this year.
With Boeing, they also had an order of Dreamliners, which they cancelled a few years ago.
Although that was just because there was a downturn in long-haul flights. New Boeing 737
orders are for building up their lowcoster "Pobeda".
For that, Russia needs to produce all types of civilian aircraft, like the USSR did.
That's hard after the 1990s, when the traitors destroyed Russian aircraft industry. There are
moves in the direction of restoring it, in cooperation with China. However, they both need to
be able to build aircraft w/o any parts from the US and its vassals. That would take 5-10
years. In fact, US sanctions pushed Russia and China in the direction of self-sufficiency
very hard. In Russian it is called "sawing off the bough you sit on". The West is really good
at that lately.
These sanctions might be a net positive for Russia in the long term, forcing them to
develop indigenous industries instead of just importing everything from the oil revenue.
Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing
Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like
back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?
The "free market" of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify will protect good Americans from
fake news.
Presumably they can still source from Rolls Royce. The UK is a smaller economic power than
America and presumably less interested in sabotaging one of its crown jewels (never rule it
out with the UK ofc).
Russia's aerospace technology is inferior to the West, but that's irrelevant since Russia
can simply force Russian carriers to purchase Russian aircraft. Higher operating costs
relative to foreign carriers can be addressed with subsidies (or tariffs).
Prioritizing your own technology also creates the option of charting an independent
technological course. For instance, instead of building swept-wing jets with low bypass
turbofan engines optimized for transonic cruise, you could build straight-wing aircraft with
propfans optimized for low fuel consumption. You can also build supersonic aircraft and
experiment with different planforms than the boring one established by the Boeing 707.
It's kind of funny how many Americans feel threatened by Iran.
Regarding Russia as a threat at least makes a certain sense given Russia's nuclear arsenal
and ability to destroy the US.
Every time Medvedev opens his mouth, he makes me cringe. Seriously, if you're going to
proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going
to fight back and win. Smart Russians will be heading to currency exchange (
обменный
пункт ) after hearing this statement.
More fuel consumption than is usual with modern aircraft, noisier passenger cabin, more
external noise (also important for some airports with regulations restricting noisy
aircraft), less safety, etc.
It's just not competitive to operate them. Airlines have very low margins anyway, you
cannot make a profit with obsolete aircrafts.
There are a couple of new planes which Aeroflot is going to buy/buying for shorthaul
– Superjet 100 and MC-21. Karlin was blogging about these planes a few weeks ago.
Airtickets are a freemarket, and most passengers don't want to fly in unsafe old planes
like Tu-154
A single crash can be even fatal for an airline – crash of an An-148 has earlier
this year, destroyed Saratov Airlines
As a customer, I don't think there is any disgrace in buying Boeing and Airbus. All major
airlines now, and around the world, are using mainly Airbus and Boeing, and have now retired
the Tu-154.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth
AND also Ukraine's, Moldova's, Georgia's, the Baltics and the friendly countries like
Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan etcetera. If anything the US's moron, scumbag policy towards
Russia ends up doing the exact opposite of what it intends to do Ukraine, Moldova, Gerogia and
Baltics then become more financially interlinked and even dependent on Russia than they were
before.
But in the circumstances ..is guaranteed 1% or 1.5% GDP growth per year for the next
decade even that bad considering the circumstances? Every social/infrastructure element is
improving in Russia
The enemy is probably laughing his ass off at Medvedev. One simply should NOT be making
such statements as a prime-minister of Russia. Here is another fool, who doesn't understand currency markets:
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
It's fake outrage and fake unpopularity on these two issues. 18% increased to 20% is a
non-issue ( the budget is being spent significantly better than ever to offset this increase
in VAT)
A lot of nonsense about "long overdue" get's said about pension reform but this is total
BS.
Yes Russia has 48 million out of 146 million as pensioners, but the most important thing is
the unexpected , way above average increase in life expectancy . that has actually instigated
this move by the authorities.
Those approaching retirement won't suddenly have to work 1-5 years longer they can still
opt-in to the current arrangements in the overlapping period.. and with guarantees pension
increased much further to corresponding inflation levels than now.
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms
Disagree with this .the same patterns that have been shown in the last 4 years need to
continue, no radical "reform" is necessary. Small and medium sized business have gone from 10
million to 20 million people and should easily reach the target in afew years time that the
President wished for in May,credit behavior and availability is becoming more and more
western,
Instead of saying "reduction in size of government sector" you must specify exactly which
areas of state control should be privatised .too often from liberasts their focus is solely
on getting state control off critically important energy resources and distribution .nothing
else.
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their
greatness-acknowledgers – even when it's detrimental to their own survival.
If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers – the
role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.
Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has
always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or
to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical
instruments to put on a remarkable concert – even if afterwards no one is left to
applaud.
Mice and humans are quite different, results applying to mice apply to humans less than
50% of the time. The loss rates on this, at any rate, are insane:
Of the 1348 embryos they made, eight pups were born.
Every beginning is hard. Considering that all the cutting edge research in
fertility/cloning/artificial wombs is done on shoestring budgets, the progress is amazing.
Imagine what could be done with sufficient funding.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
The West is stymied by the "pro-lifers" of the right and "bioethicists" of the left, and this
is Russia's chance. Unlike the origial M project, Russians can keep things secret, and even
if the West will suspect something, what can they do? Impose sanctions?
In the thirties, ignorant Caucasian moustacheoid gangster picked the Lysenkoists over the
scientifically correct Darwinist transhumanist eugenicists. Time to undo this mistake.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
And it will have as much impact on the outcome of the looming confrontation as the
Mengele's research had on the outcome of the WWII.
He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
The west has no qualms about using Islamist. Radical Islam has been used in 1950s against
Nasser's regime in Egypt. Islamist were used against secular pro Soviet regime of Afghanistan
and then against Assad's Syria, Hussain's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. The equation is
complicate: on one side you have Israel's Yinon Plan and global neoliberal and Islamists and
on the other side you have secular national countries that try to build greater sovereignty
and stronger state.
Majority of Islamist are just useful idiots while some among the leadership are operatives
of western security services. Sometimes they break off the leash like Hamas which it does not
seem to be controlled by Mossad anymore but it still does everything from the wish list of
Israel's hard-liners.
My pet theory is that Islamist of Iran who destroyed the fast growing and developing Iran
of Shah were also used by some foreign interests in the west and/or Israel. Shah himself
believed it was the British.
You should look at history of your own country in 19 and 20 century. To what extent all
those patriots responsible for numerous and hopeless uprisings were useful idiots, dupes or
operatives of foreign interests?
Question about the Skripal poisoning–if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?
Also, it's interesting that Sergei Skripal's poisoning has resulted in much more Western
action than Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning back in 2006 did.
' The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis. '
Now they'll have to pay the Israelis to get it for them. Does this count as aid to
Israel?
I am always puzzled to hear that lesbians require artificial insemination. I had a couple
of friends who were a bit behind schedule, and were trying hard to conceive just before the
last eggs would wither. Whatever they were doing, taking days off from work when the
thermometer said so, shoving it at any price, and so on – it could not be described as
pleasurable. So why would the lesbians not bear it if they so much need children?
On a more general note, I am puzzled as to how USSR survived between 1945 and 1989 without
fainting at the thought that Americans would not recognize annexation of the Baltic jokes,
that Russians would not be allowed to use dollars, or that Pokemon Go could be blocked in the
Russian app store. Surely, if you have a population of idiots, like USSR circa 1989, who
would think that it's their ow government blocking the dollar and Pikachu, it may gnaw at the
roots of the state. But today's Russians can guess that with Putin or without him, with
Crimea or without it, they are still seen as enemies of America, and will be treated
accordingly.
Conservatives pilloried the program, which sources said is a gift to an Orthodox Jewish
community that has pressed for government-paid fertility services for 15 years.
Orthodox leaders called the budget measure a "significant victory" for women struggling
to have kids in a community that traditionally values large families.
"This amendment will make it easier for women who would like to have children to do so,"
said Jeff Leb, a top lobbyist for Jewish nonprofits.
Guilty until proven innocent? Don't open that Pandora's box. You're gleefully piling on
the Russians now, but give a few years and the same gang might apply that principle to you in
turn. Just because they hate Russians at this moment doesn't mean they hold any love for the
rest of humanity.
Brunson's captivity had dragged for quite long already, and we heard negotiations for his
release made some progress before. However, Trump ramped up the rhetoric at a precise moment:
when Turkey announced they would not only shirk new Iran sanctions (like they did in the
past) but also were being vocal about this.
Seeing what ensued, again yes the S-400 was an irritant for a while already and certainly
cumulate with other factors but the timeline is interesting. God forbid we conclude those who
should not be named are ultimately setting the agenda here, not really the pastor's plight
under islamist thugs.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge.
He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK,
there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the
Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to
kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government
disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the
Russian government.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow
got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested
for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic
to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky
suggest a source other than the Russian government.
That's wrong, except about the innumeracy of the majority of biologists. Evolutionary
biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate
(like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Evolutionary biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of
them are numerate (like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form a
semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
(A theory that will never be formed, because Darwinism violates the very basic theorems of
probability and computation.)
Could you give an example of some probabilities? How do you calculate them and with what
assumptions?
At resent article by Fred Reed the commenter "j2″ produced some numbers but I was
too lazy and not certain that his starting assumptions were correct to verify it.
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form
a semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
Such complete bullshit. Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics
and an education in theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the
practical applications, better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly
deal with abstract theory. You clearly know nothing beyond high school level physics (or
anything else for that matter).
Some fields of modern physics like thermodynamics ARE basically just pure probability
theory applied to physical phenomena. If you take a random sample of research physicists from
your local university, they're much more likely to be doing statistical mechanics rather than
trying to find analytical solutions for their n-body problem and some application of
probability is usually the most important field of mathematics for working physicists.
You're right again about the Litvinenko conspiracy, Mickey. The notion that the Russian
government would want to eliminate somebody who had betrayed its secret service, written
books denouncing Vladimir Putin for giving the order to murder the likes of Boris Bereszvsky,
Anna Polikovskaya and others, accused the secret service of being behind the bombings of the
Russian apartment buildings, just doesn't add up or make any sense. The fact that Litvinenko,
while lying on his death bed directly accused Putin for being responsible for his death also
didn't lend any value that it was indeed Putin behind his poisoning. It just goes to show you
the lengths to which the enemies of Russia and Vladimir Putin will go to try and besmearch
Putin's honorable name. But they'll never be able to fool somebody with your veracity and
skillul analysis – keep up the great 'independent foreign analysis'!
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
I wasn't aware of this and am glad that you pointed this out. Another incredibly strong
reason not to believe that the Russian government was behind the Litvinenko poisoning. Isn't
it time that you wrote a book, Mickey? I know that other book authors regularly rely on your
input to write their own monographs, isn't it time that you put it all together and shared
more of your thoughts with the world? Perhaps, Karlin might let you write a chapter in his
forthcoming book 'The Dark Lord of the Kremlin'?
Anyone wants to comment on this bizarre diplomatic spat, that Greece and Russia are having?
The abrupt deterioration in relations between Greece and Russia has intensified after
Athens publicly accused Moscow of attempting to bribe state officials and meddle in the
country's internal affairs.
Athens also rejected requests for entry visas from Russian Orthodox clerics heading for
northern Greece's all-male monastic republic of Mount Athos.
The community is alleged to be a "den of spies" , with reports that Moscow has
turned the Holy Mount – widely seen as the spiritual centre of Orthodoxy – into
an intelligence-gathering operation with extensive funding of monasteries across the
peninsula.
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics and an education in
theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the practical applications,
better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly deal with abstract
theory.
Untighten your panties. That was my point, which you managed to miss by blindly charging
to M'Lady Science's defense.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
The practical stuff physicists are using for solving practical, well-defined problems is
useless here.
* Age of the universe is about 10^18 seconds.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45 seconds.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
Now assume an ideal computer. Let each atom of the Universe be a CPU, operating as fast as
physics allows.
That gives us an upper bound of 10^(18+45+82) = 10^145 CPU cycles for computation.
Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.)
If we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random
combinations.
So if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose
a Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so.
How much more complex is an E. Coli cell compared to a sonnet?
P.S. This is obvious, freshman-tier stuff unless you're blinded by ideology.
What' s to make of it? The article that you cite clearly explains what the row is all
about:
Moscow announced the move weeks after Athens banned four Russian diplomats after
accusing them of fomenting opposition to a landmark deal between Greece and macedonia,
opening up the possibility of eventual Nato membership for Skopje.
Your own bizarre explanation betrays your own Russian reasoning:
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
My guess is that the Greek government wants to gain a powerful backer against
Brüssel.
In Greece, he very often appears in public alongside Kammenos and spreads his political
views on what is going on in the country via his Twitter account.
The influence goes so far that Pyatt unchallengedly criticizes the Greek judiciary and
demands measures against anti-American demonstrators. Tsipras administration, arguing
anti-Americanly itself at opposition times, on the other hand, fulfils every wish of the
USA. While on the other side of the Bosphorus NATO partner Turkey is pushing its dispute
with the US to the top, Greece's government is the most US-friendly since the overthrow of
military rule in July 1974: NATO interests, gas pipelines and the regional influence of the
North Atlantic defence alliance.
The coalition government of SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks agreed to the expansion of
American military bases in Greece, including the stationing of nuclear weapons. This was
not initially communicated to the public by the government, but only became known when the
Secretary General of the Communist Party, Dimitris Koutsoubas, criticized it during public
performances.
Secret diplomacy, as in the case of NATO, is also a characteristic of the Tsipras
government in resolving the name dispute with northern Macedonia and in ongoing
negotiations on border corrections with Albania. All negotiations are held in secrecy, with
reference to the protection of state interests. There is no detailed information and no
transparency regarding the reasons for the decision.
Athens is now providing NATO with the infrastructure for military bases in the event
that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan withdraws his country from the North Atlantic
Defence Alliance.
Yes, that's is the infamous Pyatt who was ambassador in Kiev during the Maidan Coup.
He has been in Athen since 2016.
The case brings to the forefront the tension that seems to have been brewing between
Athens and Moscow over the last two years, for reasons that have to do with regional
security.
Yeltsin was president when the bombings happened. Putin was only prime minister for a
couple of weeks before the tower block bombings happened. Boris Bereszvsky killed himself
(exiles are often miserable, Skripal wanted to go back) after Litvinenko, they were a couple
of losers. No, Putin is a proud man, he sent the anti terror police to arrest Gusinsky not
because of investigation into the apartment massacres of hundreds, but because that puppet
show Dolls of Gusinsky's NTV portrayed Putin in a way he hated.
Who wouldn't want to inflict a horrible death on someone who accused them of being a
paedophile? Litvinenko accused Putin of being a child molester and so Putin immediately
issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered and a month he was poisoned (like apartment
bombings, these things take a while to set up).
This brings me back to my point about Hitler & weak, foolish Eastern Europeans. Greek
government is only behaving this way because it sees no risks in antagonising Russians
whatsoever. Slapping sanctions on Greece (by banning tourism for example) might get them
thinking.
Look, I'm not passing judgement on the veracity of these accusations, that Litvinenko made
against Putler. I see that you've added another one to the list, that Litvinenko accused
Putler of being a pedophile too. All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why
Litvinenko was a target for unfriendly Rusian actions, not like our resident 'Independent
foreign Policy Analyst' Mike Averko who claims:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act.
Of course, he's a professional analytical type that always knows what he's talking
about?
Greece has been a member of NATO since 1952, it joined the European Community in 1981.
It's odd though that a Greek leftist like Tsipras is pro-American, given the strong
anti-American traditions of Greek left-wingers. But Tsipras seems to be an all-around scumbag
anyway.
how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades
Russia can start taking China's side on an ad hoc basis, e.g. sending ships to the
disputed sea and hassling US ships and planes. Russia could hassle them on the Northern half
and China on the Southern half, a nice division of labor and multiplication of hassle for the
US Navy.
Russia has enough chicken legs of its own now. They are not washed in chlorine.
Disengagement will simply remove what little influence the US has on Russia. Russia's
exports are utterly dominated by primary production which is entirely fungible. The US
exports little of high added to Russia and the EU and Switzerland, Korea and increasingly
China can replace that. Japan probably won't. Russia has been trying to play a softer game
with Japan but both sides true imperialist nature keeps on re-emerging. Like the US, Japan
has remarkably low levels of trade with Russia given the size of its economy. Switzerland
does a lot of high end complex electromechanical systems, like the Germans. The Germans are
good; The Swiss are perfect.
I'm not really sure how low prices for Turkey can become lower. It's already very
cheap.
Maybe further devaluation can contribute to the tourist market diverging more between
Greece and Turkey. More and more poorer people will go on holiday to Turkey, as it becomes
almost as cheap to go on holiday in Turkey, as it is to stay at home.
Maybe Greece can focus more on middle segment of the tourist market.
Greece had withdrawn from the NATO military structure after the invasion of Cyprus by
fellow member Turkey. If I remember rightly it was their own PM who told Greeks they had to
go back into NATO to be allowed to join the EC.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
Bullshit. I have a pretty good education in probability theory both from the theoretical
physics and mathematics departments so feel free to explain whatever point you think you have
in as technical terms and with as much abstract math as you like.
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
It will have a negative impact on domestic Russian consumption short term. It's stupid,
short sighted, and hard to reverse. Sanctions work best when used least.
"Age of the universe" is a pop sci concept. In the standard model of cosmology it is
estimated that the universe has developed from a massively dense state to the current state
in roughly 13 billion years. We can backtrack the development over that time with current
theories of physics and then we hit a wall as matter is so dense that we'd need a quantum
theory of gravity to go further back in time but we don't have that. We don't know how long
the universe existed before that, actually we don't even know if time existed in the same
manner. The earliest known state of the universe was NOT informationless (there were
variations in mass distribution etc) so your assumption that patterns would emerge only in
the following 13 billion years is false.
[MORE]
If you watch some pop sci documentary, they will explain all sorts of stuff about how the
universe was at first some tiny point and there was a big explosion that spread it all over.
This is all nonsense that was made up so that pop sci documentaries could have CGI
graphics.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45
seconds.
There is no such thing as the "smallest possible unit of time". This is complete nonsense.
You seem to get your knowledge of physics from science fiction movies.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment). This is not the same thing as
postulating that there is some "smallest possible unit of time". Current theories of physics
simply do not include such a thing.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Turks are a lot more orderly and competent than Greeks. In fact, I was surprised how much
more organized Turks are: we rented a car in Ankara near railway station and returned it in
another city near airport, and they delivered the car where we wanted it and then took it off
my hands, without car rental agency at either point.
For Russians, there are two additional advantages: no visa is required (you just pay $20
at the airport, and they stick what they call "visa" in your passport), and the same services
are cheaper than in Greece.
"Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding."
The US went thru a period of noticeable politically motivated violence (in one form or
another), that among other things included the murders of the Kennedy brothers, King, X,
black children in a church, fatal Kent State shootings and the Manson involved murders.
There was absolutely no need for the Russian government to orchestrate the Moscow
apartment bombings. The evidence is non-existent, with the so-called evidence being a
put mildly creative stretch. On par with the idea that the US government sought and was
involved in planning 9/11. Terrorism from Chechnya was a clear reality before the Moscow
apartment bombings.
A disingenuous cherry pick on your part, along with empty calories sarcasm. It wasn't only
his (as has been said) sympathy for Chechen separatism, but a combination of factors, in
conjunction with that aspect.
What I said in full on this matter:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
It's a pity that the good things Macedonia is doing (like fixing its relations with Bulgaria
and Greece and starting to slowly accept the real history as opposed to the shit made up by
the Serbs, the communists and Tito) are all done for such a shitty reason like entering the
EU and NATO.
Greece has an inferior tourist industry and plenty of great European competition (Spain,
Italy, Croatia etc.)
Thanks to Cyprus, you don't even to travel to Greece if you want to be on vacation in a
Greek-speaking country.
Stick to the facts and do not reply back with your monotonous drum of often recited BS
when you don't have a credible reply, Mickey!
I was specifically pointing out the paucity of information that you provided regarding
your alternative suggestion that somebody other than Russian backed was responsible for
Livinenko's demise. As I've already pointed out, I do not pass judgments on any of the
aspersions that Litvinenko made against Putler, only that the smoking gun clearly points
towards Moscow. If you've got something better, then present it I'd try something more clever
than indicating that Litvinenko was in favor of Chechen separatists.
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise faulty impression.
Whoa, what do we have here? Another genuine ' Averkoism '??
You indicate that I ' include mis-informative cherry picks' to spin an otherwise
faulty impression. Why yes, I guess that's what I can be contrued doing. Most
impressions that you make are faulty' ' and deserve to be rebuked, don't you think? I
think that what you meant to say was that:
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise accurate impression.
Mickey, you don't really want to be remembered for making 'faulty impressions ' now
do you?
I have to agree with Mikhail here. I think that Litvinenko affair was like a
dress-rehearsal for the most famous, daring and successful spy operation in history –
the Babchenko affair.
You see, such a stunning operation like that takes years to perfect and for the Ukrainians
Litvinenko was just a guinea pig on whom they tested their secret intelligence (OK,
intelligence might be a stretch) operations skills.
And Litvinenko was an easy choice, the Ukrainians were sure that because of his background
– it will be blamed on the Russians.
Nevertheless, this doesn't take anything away from the professionalism and mastery that
Ukrainians displayed when they designed the Babchenko hoax. I wouldn't be surprised at all if
Babchenko success story launches a new series of spy novels – maybe about agent 008
– where 008 is the IQ of the agent.
My take too rT. Economic warfare will not play out against Russia today as it did against
Japan and Germany in the 1930′s; because while they were energy dependent, Russia has
an abundance of oil and can and will–as you say–bootstrap its own industries inso
far as they are able. They don't have to develop a surplus to trade since, like the USA 100
years ago, their population is sufficiently large to support a robust internal market.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
You can read statements of their foreign ministry.
His statements to do with paranoia about Russian-Turkey relations – statement from
Greece was claiming Russia is a "comrade in arms with Turkey".
As Russia becomes friendly with Turkey – they will find an excuse to be angry, and
vice-versa.
I feel that this is one of those situations, when you need to read between the lines.
Turkey, religion and "meddling" ARE excuses for Greece. Trying to please Greece's creditors
is the real issue here. It's a literal crackwhore of a nation, living from one tranche to
another.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
This is implausible, for reasons that have been discussed multiple times here, including
recently.
The idea that the Chinese will move to seize Siberia is a ridiculous fantasy.
China and Russia already in the 1990s peacefully resolved all of their outstanding
border issues.
China suffers from below replacement fertility and solved its food security issues in
the 1980s, so the era of "Yellow Peril" population pressure belongs to the distant past.
And in any case the Russian Far East is useless for agricultural purposes.
There are indeed some minerals in Siberia, but let's review some economic facts about
China:
China can buy all the resources it needs. The main threat to China's economic security
are the naval and air forces of the United States and Japan, and to a lesser extent the US
Treasury and Commerce Departments. Expanding into Siberia does exactly zero to counter any
of these threats, unless you think the Port of Vladivostok somehow enables the PLA-N to
break out into the open Pacific.
Instead it multiplies these threats by pointlessly adding Russia to its enemies and
eliminating the possibility of overland trade substituting for seaborne trade.
China is a security threat to Siberia only once the following are true:
1 – USA abandons Western Pacific in favor of hemispheric security
2 – China secures dominance over Second Island Chain
3 – China replaces USA as lynch pin of global financial (as opposed to just economic)
system
And given China's cautious attitude, that might not be enough. For instance, a USA
focused on hemispheric security would still be viewed as potentially dangerous by China
owing to its blue water navy and dominance of the "Third Island Chain".
If China displaces the USA as the world's preeminent power, then there might be some cause
for concern. But even then I'm not so sure–Russia would be Canada to China's America.
The USA and Canada have had very good relations since the 1930s.
Lebensraum with Chinese Characteristics is not going to happen.
That's not to say everything will be hunky dory in Russian-Chinese relations. There are
areas of friction like:
• Influence in Central Asia
• Chinese IP theft
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
The CRAIC CR929 project looks great for now, but the gist of it is that while it's
designed in Russia it will be made in China. Once China matches Russia in aerospace
technology, what is Russia's role in this partnership? Seems like the most likely outcome is
that Russian industry is reduced from producing aircraft to merely being a Tier One supplier
and, perhaps, an engine supplier.
Will Russia be happy with that? I don't know. The UK decided to accept being reduced to
this status after the commercial failure of its innovative but flawed postwar airliners
cheerfully enough I suppose. Japan considered but decided against developing a complete
aerospace-industrial base, though this may be changing (MHI Regional Jet, Kawasaki P1, MHI
X-2 Shinden).
He's a svido troll as evidenced by his ongoing distortions and omissions, which include
not having a good comeback to the following:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
So, do you have even one shred of any evidence linking the poisoning of Litvinenko
with the Ukrainian secret service? If not, I wouldn't spend too much time writing your novel
about 008 and Babchenko, unless you intend it for an audience of only one gullible reader,
Michael Averko!
His ' Italian friend '? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest?
Why Litvinenko himself, albeit (if true) in a possible unintended way. No proof that the
Rusisan government did him in. No need to reply anymore to your rehashed trolling tripe.
Still no good answer to:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
-
Reason for tensions with Greece, are the new relations with Turkey.
An alternative world, with a solvent Greece, they would be more angry, than currently
weak, insolvent one – considering sale of S-400 to Turkey, construction of Akkuyu for
Turkey, and recent decision for Turkstream.
Turkstream was always supposed to go to Greece, but two months ago, finally announced it's
going to Bulgaria (with no mention of Greece).
For Turkstream it's now option if it needs to go to Greece at all – it could also
reach Italy, via the Balkans.
In a Northern option that gets to Hungary and Italy over Serbia. (With no need of
Greece).
At the same time, Israel, Cyprus and Greece are probably building a rival pipeline
(probably not very economically rational), after Cyprus has discovered a gas field.
Well orderliness is not the only reason for holiday choice.
And Schengen visa is not a big deal for middle class tourists (35 euros).
Greece already has almost "too many" tourists (from around the world), for size of the
country.
Greece receives 32 million tourists this year (while Turkey receives around 40 million a
year tourism – and is six times larger than Greece in land area).
Perhaps Greece can even raise prices and market more for middle class tourists?
You missed my reply in #143 with plenty of decent replies. I don't mind reprinting them
for you, I know how prone you are to missing information that is contrary to your myopic
belief system:
His 'Italian friend' ? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
I believe Russia's loss of influence there is inevitable. China has $$$; Turkey/Islamic
world has ethno/religious draw; USA has its hegemonic culture.
Russia has some fading sovok relicts, such as old political ties and the Victory Day
cult.
However, China is displacing it gently, as opposed to batting it away as the US and EU are
wont to do. This naturally makes Russia much better disposed than it otherwise would be.
• Chinese IP theft
Will become less of an issue as China converges with and overtakes Russia in many
technological areas. For instance, the realization that China's MIC is progressing far faster
than expected – without significant Russian tech transfer – has contributed to
Russia dropping its inhibitions on selling the S-400 and advanced fighters to China in recent
years. (An HBD realist could have told them as much, earlier).
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
The equitable arrangement would be for Russia to defer to China on North Korea and the Far
East in general (though economic relations with Japan should be broadened), and to require
that China do the same for Russia wrt to its Near Abroad.
But certainly a much more dominant China may no longer feel the need to honor such an
arrangement.
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
This will certainly be an issue.
Russia's nuclear technology is much further advanced than China's (the gap is much bigger
than the rapidly dwindling one in the military sphere), and it doesn't appear to me that
China is making a major R&D push in that area. I think Russia will continue to dominate
global nuclear tech exports for at least 2-3 more decades.
Russia's current dominance of global nuclear exports is something of a fluke.
The West crippled its nuclear industry owing to pathological atomophobia. Design expertise
didn't atrophy, but construction experience did. Result was massive cost overruns and endless
delays on the few Western Gen III reactor projects. Now effectively priced out of the world
market.
Japan suffered from the double whammy of Fukushima and Toshiba getting dragged down by the
collapse of Westinghouse. Even though it's somewhat unfair, no one will now order Japanese
reactors in the near future. The Japanese elite, once truly impressive in its atomophilia and
determination to resist popular atomophobia, is no longer united on the issue either. Former
Prime Minister Junichiro Koisumi has for instance called for Japan to shut down all nuclear
power plants.
Emerging competitor is South Korea. The Koreans successfully won the project in the United
Arab Emirates, and within South Korea they have an excellent record of efficient
construction. Fortunately for Russia, the very weak President Moon is a disgraceful
atomophobe.
Thanks for your comments. I really wasn't referring to today, more to a tomorrow when
China is the world's leading economy and the USA is struggling to enforce dollar
supremacy.
You are looking at it from a wrong perspective, pal. I was simply expressing pride and
admiration for the competence of the Ukrainian Secret Services. Why can't a fellow –
even though admittedly phony – Slav like me feel proud of the accomplishments of a
Slavic country that I look upon to for inspiration and guidance?
Interesting argument but it hinges on something that is not a part of it, i.e, what is
special about the 458 letter sonnet? Your argument only demonstrates that if another world
began 10^18 seconds ago it most likely would not produce the same 458 letter sonnet but it
would produce some other sonnet which could have a meaning in this different world.
You could create similarly fallacious argument 'proving' that you cannot possibly exist.
Assign probabilities p<<1 of an event that two of your ancestors met and procreated.
What was a chance that your parent met and then go back to grandparents and so on. And soon
you will obtain cumulative probability close to zero stating exactly what? That your life
could not have happened?
I think it is east to be confused and tricked by probabilities. And this happens when we
are sloppy in defining the space of events on which the probability function must be defined.
When you are heating up water at some point there will me one molecule of H2O that will break
free and evaporate. If this molecule asked the Nancy Kerrigan's question "Why me?" and began
calculating the probability of this event soon it would have to conclude the even was
impossible. The problem is with the question "Why me?"
Thanks man, I am really trying. If I may confide in you, you know what I find the most
admiring about the Ukrainians? Your keen sense of democracy.
I mean, it took you what – barely 4 years to figure out that Yanukovych was not
democratic enough – and then boom – revolution. I mean you guys are sharp. Look
at the Russians, they have been electing Putin since 2000 and they still haven't figured out
that he is not democratic enough. You are way ahead of the game.
You know what I think? I think that one good coup is worth at least 5-6 regular elections.
So if you guys were to stage another coup within – let's say the next couple of years
– it's like you've gone through 12 regular elections of 4 years each. You know what
– if I was you I wouldn't even bother with elections, elections are for dummies, just
stick with coups and soon you'll overtake even Western Europe – democracy and economic
development wise, so you won't even need their stinking EU.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
I can't help it if you don't know the specifics about Litrvinenko's aforementioned Italian
friend. Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid
they are. Then again, part of you might recognize that, seeing your cowardly anonymous empty
calories insults.
Opposite to your shooting blanks is this precision reply:
Thek ind of Russian-American views not getting propped in US mass media. Similar to the PC
Ukrainian views getting the nod over Ukrainians thinking differently.
You're on the right track, buddy! I don't know why AP tries to continually put you in
place by pointing out that you're not really a Slav, but some sort of Balkanized Turk. Who
cares? Your last two comments indicate that you're capable of evolving your thinking patterns
much higher that the typical 97 or 98. Heck, I'd guess that you're a solid 99! Keep it
up!
Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid they
are.
I see that you're still babbling on Mickey. Isn't it time for you to do a few
rounds of kumbaya in front of your icon of Herr Putler and go to sleep yet?
As La Russophobe imagines it, Averko then sits down in the lotus position, the room lit
by a single candle beneath a large photo of Stalin, and intones his mantra several thousand
times: "I am a journalist I am a journalist I am a journalist " until he falls asleep. When
he wakes up, he heads out to his day job flipping hamburgers at Wendy's
"Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.) If
we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random combinations. So
if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose a
Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so."
The above just shows that the author is just completely ignorant of scientific, statistics
and computing principles.
First in English the occurance of letters do not have random frequencies, the frequencies
range from 0.074% for letter z to 12.702% for letter e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency
Incidentally sonnet 27 only has 80 unique words, many of which are not random but closely
related, e.g. blind, old, sight, tired, sightless, see, ghastly, shadow, darkness, expired,
eyelids, drooping, weary, bed, toil, view, night, etc. A task simple enough for markov text
sonnet generators,
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
What's the "it" in your post, exactly? Darwinism? The problem with Darwinism is
that it's not a scientific theory. It's not even formulated correctly. The problem itself is
framed by biologists in handwavey terms on a "monkeys and typewriters" level.
When one tries putting some sort of numbers to the idea, the whole thing falls apart. See
my post above, for example, where it turns out you need a Universe about 10^300 larger than
ours to make random selection work.
And before you charge to M'Lady Science's defense: note this isn't a "disproof", it's just
a demonstration that nobody bothered to frame the question properly yet. There's nothing
there that can be proved or disproved.
The actual point is that biologists framed a problem in a way that doesn't match the scale
of our Universe as we observe it.
Feel free to correct the numbers I made; maybe the correct factor is 10^100 instead of
10^300. So what? The processes biologists postulate are so asymptotic that they require an
infinite Universe, which doesn't exist in real life.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment).
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Good point, but no. You missed the point again.
Any theory that requires time or space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics isn't Darwinism. It wouldn't even be biology, because biologists don't (and can't)
deal with stuff like that.
I never assigned any special meaning to a sonnet. I merely demonstrated that the size of
the probability spaces we're traversing are unimaginable orders of magnitude larger than the
Universe we observe.
Formulating the probability spaces and functions should be step one of any biological
theory of evolution. Only then we can start talking about meanings and other philosophy.
Good point, but unfortunately Markov chains (and evolutionary algorithms) are intelligent
design, not random evolution.
They are tools for getting an answer when you know the result you want, but don't know the
steps to get it. The better you understand the result you want, the faster you arrive at a
solution.
That's a framework postulated by 'intelligent design' proponents, and rejected by
conventional Darwinist biologists.
OK, so what is the big deal about generating random string of 458 letters? Any such string
can be easily generated with the same probability from a bag full of letters. Each string is
equivalent.
Continuing on AKarlin's conclusion how Russia's future economic and foreign policy
orientation lies on the EU's response to the US's inevitable Iran-style sanctions against
Russia, I'll walk through some situations, and also state that once sanctions and adversaries
with unfriendly relations escalate to embargo and enemies with no relations on the US side,
the EU's decision at that point will be able to determine its fate for a long time to come.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy. This is more likely to happen if the US threatens third party
trade ties with Russia. This means that EU imposes Iran-style sanctions, and gradually turns
to more expensive US LNG for energy. This would put the EU under incredible strain, and a
large amount of state coffers would be shaved off due to these purchases; the citizens
disposable income would plunge too. On the other hand, Europe won't really collapse if the US
agrees to subsidize gas sales to the EU in exchange for joining the ideological crusade
against Russia.
In the Kissinger thread where I mentioned how a blackpilled possibility of Russia's future
lies as a vassal state, or junior partner, of China, while I may have exaggerated a little
regarding permanent PLA bases on Russia soil, it still is a slight possibility if the
oligarchs become more powerful again and also get a little desperate. However, PLA bases
aside, if the EU joins in the US on an embargo against Russia, Russia would still be cut off
from trade and other ties to its west, and inevitably having to completely rely on its east
for trade and political ties. Since even Japan/Korea trade can be a little difficult due to
their strong US ties and India doesn't really offer Russia much, except as a place to export
some goods, this leaves us with China, rendering Russia's future as China's largest and most
important vassal state.
This would also enable the EU branch of neoliberalism.txt to show their true colors as an
American vassal. Outside of Poland and the Baltics, attitudes towards Russia vary directly on
how neoliberal they feel, so in order to prevent the people from voting in non-neoliberal
parties, some "checks and balances" aka non-democracy has to be implemented to make sure
neoliberalism.txt stays via "voting". In this case, shave off a good at least 10% to EU's
white percentage in the long run also; while its unlikely for Britain and France to ever dip
below 60% white but stabilize around that point instead, a quasi-neoliberal dictatorship
would mean Eastern and Southern Europe bearing a lot of this brunt, e.g. ghettos in Warsaw
might go from a fear to actual reality. And expect the EU's economic growth to be highly
stagnant, and China, with Russia as not just a friendly state but a vassal state, would take
advantage of this to end up becoming the other pole in a bipolar world along with the US.
Unless China changes the way it conducts trade and foreign policy, this means that Russia
will likely get taken advantage of and not get too much in return, especially with
non-patriotic and greedy oligarchs still having significant power. In this case, Russia-China
relations will resemble a more predatory version of UK/Canada-US relations and Russia will
find itself to be a largely China-oriented, with Chinese tourism, businesses, language, and
other ties etc. having a very broad, visible, and dominating presence.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran. China will gladly take
advantage of the situation.
2. The EU doesn't cave in and continues to maintain trade and political ties with Russia.
This is the better result for not just Russia, but also the entire world. A Europe that's
able to stand up to American foreign policy, especially if its more ideological hysteria than
based on realpolitik in the case with Russia, is one that would have taken its first step
towards significantly reasserting their sovereignties. This would've also been a huge blow to
the American establishment, if not THE nail in the coffin ending American unipolarity. And
China also needs more competitors instead of a bipolar world with just China and America.
2a). Europe continues to be ruled by neoliberalism.txt as America enforces the embargo.
Sanctions won't be lifted and the status quo remains. As China gets more powerful and
European relations still cold, Russia and China will end up in a full-blown alliance, but its
status quo trade and personal ties with Europe would ensure that Russia can continue to
maintain a somewhat multi-vectored approach instead of complete subservience to Beijing. And
Russia won't be as much of a "hot potato" if not embargoed by the EU, ties with countries
like Japan and South Korea will continue unabated if not upgraded. In this case, the EU can
still be a more sovereign entity, albeit just ruled by the neoliberalism.txt ideology;
demographically, slightly better than, but no significant differences from the EU caving to
US embargo case. In this case, Russia-China relations will resemble Japan-US relations,
albeit without the military bases.
Chance of this happening? 40%.
2b). Europe undergoing a right-wing wave as America enforces the embargo. Europe in this
case will lift sanctions against Russia and ties likely even upgrade to a strategic
partnership. While Russia will not become enemies with China since it is in its best interest
to not pick a fight with the world's #1 or #2 power, its relationship will stabilize as
non-adversarial but non-aligned, a renewed strategic partnership with Europe can stimulate
Russia's economy and will ensure a multipolar world emerges in the 21st century, with Russia
as a powerful 3rd or 4th most powerful country on good terms with everybody (minus the US and
parts of Eastern Europe). Such close ties to Russia will also be a boon for Europe's economy,
and the possibility to regain their sovereignties after a century-long occupation post-WW2.
America becomes more isolated and loses its unipolarity in this case.
An unrelated side effect of this tactic is that the nonwhite percentages of Europe will
probably stabilize at or just above or below (in the case of southern Europe) current
values.
In this case, Russia-China relations won't be any special, with close trade relations,
some military cooperation, and neutral détente but inevitable minor beefs that spring
up every once in a while, like a closer and better version US-China relations pre-Trump.
Russia in this case will truly be one of the smaller poles in a multipolar world.
Chance of this happening? 30%, but this is by far the best outcome for the entire
world.
* There are 27 words of one letter and 26 letters.
* There are 635 words of two letters and 676 two-letter combinations.
* There are 4710 words of three letters and 17576 three-letter combinations.
* There are 11169 four-letter words and 456976 four-letter combinations.
* There are 22950 words of five letters and 11 million five-letter combinations.
(Oops.)
* There are 61018 words of 8 letters, but 208 billion 8-letter combinations.
Now, these are words, not texts, but you get the idea. Letter combinations grow as c^n,
while the number of English texts clearly doesn't.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran.
Eh, what? It is not EUropean rhetoric that suggests that, but the gap between their
rhetoric and reality.
Europeans talk about defending JCPOA yet European big business ditches Iran and European
banks stab Iran in the back.
In recent weeks, U.S. and European intelligence agencies flagged a European-Iranian
Trade Bank request to withdraw 300 million euros from the Deutsche Bundesbank. Iran claimed
the cash is necessary so that Iranian citizens can use foreign currency when they travel,
but Western governments warned that the cash would be used to fund Iran's terrorist
proxies.
Fearing repercussions from the U.S. Treasury, the German bank decided last week to
introduce the new rules to prevent the withdrawal. This move was likely coordinated with
the German government.
In recent months, the E.U. has said that it will try to salvage the Iranian nuclear
deal, despite the U.S. withdrawal and renewed sanctions.
Initially, the E.U. explored the possibility of compensating European firms that would
be affected by the new sanctions, using the European Investment Bank.
This effort was torpedoed by the EIB, which said it might be blacklisted by the U.S.
Treasury of it was part of a scheme to offset the sanctions. EIB President Werner Hoyer
said two weeks ago that "doing business in Iran is something that we cannot be actively
engaged in."
So my 3 predictions are essentially, Iran-style western embargo, status quo with embargo
only on US side, and normalization of relations with Europe. How would you recalibrate the
likelihoods?
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
You assume that Greece is the rational actor in this situation. It's a stupid crackwhore,
desperate for a bit of debt relief.
It is also fair to say that Western decisions on financial aid are not made by
accountants, ultimately they are made by politicians, who do consider geopolitics.
Surely Greece can see that IMF is dumping billions of dollars into the Ukraine for no
other reason than geopolitics. Ukrainian regime also got a nice debt relief a couple of years
back – to better resist "Russian aggression".
So it comes down to the meaning after all. You look for words that have meaning. But why?
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not know
of. Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language? There are some believers in the intelligent design like
yourself in Pentecostal church who speak all kind of tongues nobody heard of them but to them
they have some meaning. There are patients in psychiatric wards who write 458 letter sonnets
that have meaning only to them. So why did you pick up this particular Shakespeare sonnet to
calculate a number that suppose to prove something?
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument?
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US
sanctions against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine
precisely how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to 1) develop its own international
settlements system based on a Euro reserve currency 2) redirect trade and investment towards
the ROW (rest of the world), if necessary, excluding the US 3) become a reliable
non-political trade partner to these countries 4) make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism.
The place to start would be the termination of NATO, but it would be better to implement
the policies simultaneously. It would initially be very costly to European corporations, but
ultimately worth it, with new more predictable international relationships.
This is exactly what I meant by my response. Not only will EU's response to the upcoming
US embargo be instrumental in writing Russia's role and development in the 21st century
world, but also if the EU ever wants to transform from a neoliberalism.txt US vassal
experiment to either an independent "Great Power" quasi-federation (essentially USSR 2.0
after the revolutionary phase died down, Communism replaced by neoliberalism.txt), or to
break up as wholly sovereign states, a continuation if not strengthening of relations with
Russia will be a pivotal first step for that to happen.
There is no reason to look at any further steps in your calculations when you begin with
false premises.
[MORE]
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No. The
earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity. Even if you somehow managed
to argue that the complexity of life on earth is too high to emerge in 13 billion years, it
would still be of no consequence to Darwinism since we don't need it to emerge in that time
– 13 billion years ago is not some patternless zero state of complexity.
In fact, for all we know the emergence of life on earth could have already been determined
in the earlier state of the universe 13 billion years ago. That's implausible to me but a lot
of people believe in an intelligent creator and you can easily just postulate that he baked
the emergence of man in the design of the early universe and then you're in no contradiction
with modern science whatsoever.
Where did the patterns and complexity in the early universe come from? We don't know since
the current theories of physics can't probe that far. In fact, as I said before, the whole
"age of the universe" thing is a false notion that unfortunately some physicists peddle as a
simplification of cosmology. What we can do is trace back the development of the universe
from this point in time and we can go back 13 billion years and conclude that the universe
back then was a very different place, in a very dense state that gradually "expanded" into
the current one.
However in this process we run into a dead end as to study such dense states we'd need to
make the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics work together and we can't do that
currently. Hence, everything "earlier" than that is pure speculation, in fact we don't even
know for sure whether there was a "before". This state beyond current theories has been
dubbed the "big bang", "the beginning" and such but that's all just popularization. This has
the unfortunate side effect that some people now believe physics to somehow have proven that
the universe emerged from "nothing" 13 billion years ago and that's just not true.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe is X seconds
old". You are the one who began with assumptions that require physics well beyond Newtonian
mechanics.
Most likely is "status quo with embargo only on US side" with limited shift towards
"Iran-style western embargo". EUropean elites do not show much willingness to oppose
Russophobia, but on the other hand Russia is much more integrated in the EU economy than the
Iran.
For instance, the value of the trade in 2017 between Russia and Germany was 57,3 billion
Euro (rank 14th), the number for the Iran-Germany trade was only 3,4 billion Euro (rank
58th).
From 2009 to 2011, Syria supplied almost a fifth of EU imports of phosphate, but those
sales collapsed during the war.
Official EU import data shows that phosphate shipments to Europe -- heading almost
exclusively to Greece -- are resuming and more than tripled between December 2017 to April
2018. The volumes remain small compared to the pre-war heyday, but Syria is making a clear
push to return to the EU market and its giant farm sector.
Syrian data show that total phosphate exports were more than $200 million in 2010.
Three people either working in the phosphate industry or involved with trading the
commodity said Syria is able to export again because Russian investors have resurrected the
Palmyra mines, which Islamic State militia captured in 2015. Assad awarded these reserves
to the Russians last year after Moscow helped him turn the tide against ISIS.
No, it actually doesn't. The probabilities grow as c^n, while the Universe doesn't. No
matter how big it is, it's still a fixed size due to the laws of conservation of mass and
energy.
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not
know of.
Even if every atom in the observable Universe had its own language, the number of possible
letter combinations would still be vastly bigger.
Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language?
I'm not "disproving" anything. I'm demonstrating that the "monkeys and typewriters"
argument used by biologists (and its variants "the universe is really big" and "the Earth is
really old" arguments) violate basic mathematical logic.
The Universe isn't really big. In fact, it is infinitesimal compared to the
probabilities we're dealing with here.
Once biologists acknowledge this obvious fact, then we can formulate some sort of
theory, and maybe then there will be something to prove or disprove.
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument
Do you? The point is that we're traversing probability spaces here that grow
exponentially, and yet nothing in nature can be exponential indefinitely. Somewhere in your
assumptions is a grave error.
What do you mean uncritically? I think that the citation is very critical of you.
If you're looking for something even more critical, just let me know?
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No.
The earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity.
Very good point, and one I agree with. However, this is a variant of the Intelligent
Design hypothesis, and is considered to be pseudoscience by biologists.
Like I said, I'm not "disproving" anything, merely pointing out that the way Darwinian
evolution is framed by biologists is not science.
Maybe it can be reformulated in a way that makes sense, but don't hold your breath -- the
biologists don't even understand the objections and fall back to the "Earth is, like, really
old" argument.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian
understanding of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe
is X seconds old".
Again, the actual figure is irrelevant. The point is that we've posited an exponentially
exploding probability space, and yet nothing in nature is infinite and exponential. (I know
about the cosmology arguments about the finite/infinite universe, spare me. In any case, the
observable Universe is definitely finite, and science only deals with the observable.)
Now that Syria has all but won the war, I wonder when will rebuilding and eventually
re-emerging as a stable country good enough for FDI and tourism will start. By then, I also
wonder how it will be sanctioned.
My guess is that it will rebuild under Iran-style conditions back to more or less where it
was in the early 2000s politically, economically, socially, and sanctions-wise starting
around 2020 or so.
"For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to the US has a simple response – banning
US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia, period. It can resurrect a bill – first
raised this May, since sunken in the legislature – to impose fines and prison time on
individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window."
As an American, I think Russia should do this and for good reason: the people who run this
country are idiots; if this is allowed to stand, they'll continue to push this until we get a
war. Best to head it off now by making the US Ruling Class pay the price. I especially like
the last part. Russia should just host all Hollywood movies, books, and video games on a
server accessible to American pirates (hey, Red States won't have problem with this these
scum just voted to remove Trump's star on the walk of fame anyway).
"This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism."
Not going to happen for a variety of reasons. NATO is a good way to keep an incompetent,
belligerent U.S. bogged down so that it doesn't cause any serious trouble for advanced
nations. Take Germany for instance. The number of US troops there is quite small in an
absolute sense, not enough to cause trouble, but combined with troops all over the place, the
all-volunteer US military can't really marshall the numbers necessary to invade anyone
without support from Europe. NATO is actually a clever way to control the aggressive
tendencies of the United States; without it, there is no telling what the U.S. could do.
Europe also gets high-tech weapon systems in the process – and sold at a premium
considering the enormous R&D costs involved. That's why German industrialists were stupid
to provoke Trump and go around telling Europeans to not buy American weapons (those weapons
are in some cases FAR superior to what the Europeans have and someone is definitely going to
buy them considering the cost spent to develop them, either you or a potential enemy so it
might as well be you). In all, it's good deal for them. They aren't going to chunk that for
anything.
The real key here is for Russia to strike back in a way that doesn't galvanize the
American public against them. My suggestion: cancel all American copyright protections and
start hosting American movies and television programs. Conservative republicans won't oppose
this as these programs are made in Trump-hating California – a place that just voted to
remove Trump's star on the walk of fame.
In fact, his "conservative" predecessor Samaras was more pro-German than pro-American.
Tsipras is pro-American. He is leftist like Tony Blair is leftist.
But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil, our economy will
shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
It still makes Russia look pathetically weak. The U.S. actions are essentially an act of
war. If Russia just rolls over allows itself to get kicked then the U.S. is just going to
keep on kicking. Cowardice is rarely a good policy.
the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
I bought into much of the criticism, and probably a somewhat better plane could've been
made cheaper, but all in all I think it'll be a fine enough weapon, and probably better than
any currently deployed Russian fighters. The Su-57 is not yet ready (and it's recently got
questioned if it ever will), so you cannot meaningfully compare it to it.
Altogether if you want the very best fighter jet available in the market, then you should
choose it, unless the costs are prohibitive for you. It's actually no longer much more
expensive than 4+ generation planes. I think Boeing is trying to market the F-15X, which
would be a newly produced version of the F-15 with all possible technologies (except stealth
which is impossible for this frame), and it's not going to be meaningfully cheaper than the
latest (and cheapest) F-35.
If buying Russian is politically possible for you, then the Su-35 might be a good cheaper
alternative, though countries which are allowed to buy it are usually not sold the F-35.
Maybe India (and perhaps soon Turkey?) is the only country where both could even be
considered.
If the Su-57 were ready, then maybe we could talk about whether it was better than the
F-35 (the answer would probably depend on a number of issues, e.g. the rest of the equipment
used by the military in question, and of course politics, which is to say, if there was a
chance of a political conflict with the supplier, because if yes, then obviously you'd need
to buy from the other).
For most (but not all) roles the F-35 is at least as good as any other American fighter
jet (except maybe the F-22, and maybe not even that).
Maybe that's why Israel uses its own software? (At least they rewrote part of the
software, or so I read.)
Anyway, I don't think it's a bad fighter jet for the job of fighting America's enemies.
Probably even against neutrals. It might be useless against America's friends, or America
itself, but no one buys it for that. And actually it's probably useful against America, too,
or else why is the US so reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
And probably the American idea that the Russians might use their S-400 to spy on other
Turkish weapon systems (including the F-35), when in fact it's the Americans who use weapons
they sell to do that. The Russians are probably too afraid to lose their reputations.
F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft.
That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors.
Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates. And on a small
aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your stealth. F-35 stealth is
in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band. It will be easily detected by long
wavelength radars. In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft
and firing AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where
the F-35 will be dogmeat).
The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs.
As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical. Lots of air forces continuously
modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits, etc. Why exactly is a new airframe
needed for any of this?
That said it's not like the F-35 is awful , and as usual pilot skill and other
factors can overcome inappropriate technology.
The F-35 also now costs less to buy than the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale, which is an
important advantage. Gripen is much cheaper, but Sweden has no geopolitical clout and has a
very bad habit of finding moralistic reasons not to export armaments.
If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise. France is also
a reliable supplier. Worst choice is the Super Hornet. The F-16, while now quite an old
design, is still a very capable aircraft at a reasonable price as well.
Japan now has a stealth fighter technology demonstrator in the MHI X-2 Shinden. They
somehow built it, including with indigenous turbofans, for $360m. The airframe is very
interesting in that it's built of new materials which eliminate the need for RAM, which
should keep operating costs down and increase sortie rates. But this is only a technology
demonstrator at this time, probably as proof-of-concept for the new materials and an
indigenous low-bypass afterburning turbofan engine.
As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance. Russia's official reason for
delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate for existing threats, which is
probably true.
Who knows what the real reason is. Budgetary pressures perhaps? Russia wants to double
capital spending in rouble terms in 2024, and to do so without increasing debt. At the same
time it's continuing its import substitution efforts, and there are no moves to soaking the
rich. So the money has to come from somewhere, and presumably that makes mass production of
the Su-57 and T-14 Armata less attractive.
And actually it's probably useful against America, too, or else why is the US so
reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
>study F-35 and its data
> get better at detecting/fighting F-35
It is probably one of the main reasons why the RoC (Taiwan) won't get this jet despite
needing more than most. The risk that pro-PRC agents would have access to the F-35 is not
small.
I agree. However, let's not forget that Russia and USA have very different weight and role
in the international economy. USA effectively owns the system of international finance. That
is to say "international finance" is but an extention of US financial system. They can
exclude Russia, we can't exclude them (from the system they created and own).
If Russia is going to impose meaningful costs on the US, I think it can only be done
through non-economic means. Realistically, what action Russia could take that would
potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central
American drug cartels?
Using your own software is common for technologically advanced powers concerned about
their sovereignty and their own military-industrial capabilities. Japan for instance (after
being bullied out of building its own indigenous fighter in the 80s) built its own upgraded
version of the F-16 which, among other things, included Japanese software. Like Israel, Japan
also fields its own air-to-air missiles which on paper are in the first rank.
The UK took a different route of becoming a Level 1 Partner on the F-35 program, so they
received privileged access to the source code which is not available to other powers.
The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else. It actually could have some utility against America since America lags Russia
and China in low-frequency radar and infrared search and track, but probably the real
reluctance is safeguarding technology. In particular materials (e.g. the new RAM panels
instead of finicky coatings) and the engines.
Sun Tzu say avoid combat with superior force, bide time and wait till you are stronger. Of
course doesn't take Sun Tzu to work that out, even if he did say it.
IMF funded by a lot of countries though – Russia now one of the top ten important
creditors and more influential owners of the IMF (although it's proportion of ownership is
still multiples times smaller compared to US).
Russia is 8th largest shareholder of the IMF (out of 189 countries). US is largest
share-holder, and then Japan and China.
Decisions are based on member voting which is based on share in the organization, so
Russia has 8th largest vote in IMF, but behind USA, Japan, China, etc.
Part of the Greek debt is owned by Russia through the IMF, probably relative to Russian
ownership of IMF and the debt relief packages partly also funded from Russian loans.
Fortunately, IMF ownership of Greek debt is several times smaller than the eurozone
countries. But Russia's government share of Greece debt will probably be some billions of
dollars. That's how Greece can basically continue receiving money – so many countries
are owed money on their debt.
Thanks man, that's what I have been craving all my life – an approval from a
Ukrainian hick. You keep it up too buddy, your encouragement means the world to me.
VAT is not a "non-issue". When you raise from 18% to 20%, then you are taking
significantly more money from the whole population (including poor people) who want to buy
things in private sector, and transferring this money to state sector, where not all extra
money (to be "polite") is going to be used "wisely".
At the same time, a problem now is to have up to 50% of the federal budget from oil/gas
revenues – which is a volatile priced resource.
So it's typical dilemma with neither option looking good.
Of course, the solution to both, is to reduce unnecessary government expenditure, which
continues to grow all the time in many useless areas, to the extent that you can see
expressed in even unhidden ways of the luxurious buildings being constructed for all kinds of
different government offices who could really do their job just as well (or incompetently) in
a warehouse or a polyester and nylon tent.
You uncritically referenced an anonymous, lying coward (not too much different from
yourself BTW), who ducked a live one hours BBC World Service radio panel discussion, much
unlike the person who you've an obsession with.
Increasing taxation reduces private consumption, but I'm skeptical that it creates a
long-term output gap (short term is a different matter). The OECD has prosperous economies
with taxation at a share of GDP ranging from about one-third to three-fifths. Such a wide
divergence suggests that high taxes and prosperity are not incompatible. Money spent by the
state is still spent, and even if it's spent dubiously it continues to circulate.
Russia's official economic plan (besides import substitution) is to increase capital
spending. It intends to do with while retaining fiscal discipline and limiting offshore
borrowing. If you are unable or unwilling to borrow to finance investment, you must suppress
consumption.
Suppressing consumption to finance investment has a track record of success in East Asia
and for that matter Russia itself (~1928-1970).
The intent is to increase capital spending from one-fifth of GDP to one-quarter. A
reasonable goal.
The real issue here of course is that the intent is for this increase in investment to
come from the state and state-controlled companies, whose track records are dubious.
Still, perhaps something good could be done. Russia's nuclear industry is one bright spot,
and shifting to a more nuclear power mix would allow for more hydrocarbon exports and improve
public health. Russia is a growing agricultural exporter, and somehow I doubt Russia has the
ubiquitous farm roads like we have here in the American Midwest.
Perhaps it would be wiser to reduce Rouble borrowing costs for the business sector by
suppressing consumer credit and promoting higher household savings. Household savings rate in
Russia is only 8%. China is 38%.
"F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft."
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy reduces
stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors."
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There is
no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive sensor
suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as good, and
probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to the
contrary is wishful thinking.
"Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates."
The US can easily afford it.
"And on a small aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your
stealth."
Doesn't matter. The F-35 will be operating with many other F-35s. Combined, it will be a
formidable foe.
"F-35 stealth is in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band."
No, it's not. The F-35 is simply more stealthy frontal but still stealthy over all.
Further, X-band is the frequency required for a weapons lock. All stealth aircraft are
specialized for this radar band.
"It will be easily detected by long wavelength radars."
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already detect
stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the 90s.
"In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft and firing
AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where the F-35 will
be dogmeat)."
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
"The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs."
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
"As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical."
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation weapons
that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be any
different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you have
displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be based on
anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
"Lots of air forces continuously modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits,
etc. Why exactly is a new airframe needed for any of this?"
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
"That said it's not like the F-35 is awful, and as usual pilot skill and other factors can
overcome inappropriate technology."
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
"If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise."
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
"As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance."
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
"Russia's official reason for delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate
for existing threats, which is probably true."
Russia is delaying because 1. they can't afford to buy the aircraft 2. they are having
trouble constructing the aircraft as designed and in the quantity required 3. it probably
isn't as good as the F-35 anyway, so they don't see a point in building it.
The F-35 is for transferring US technology to Israel
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/israels-air-force-might-have-the-ultimate-weapon-custom-25983
Lockheed-Martin has mostly refused to allow major country-specific modifications to the
F-35, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars foreign F-35 operators contributed to the
aircraft's development. Israel, however, managed to carve out an exception. Though not an
investor in the F-35's development, Tel Aviv was nonetheless quick to sign on to the
program with an initial order of fifty. It also negotiated a favorable deal in which
billions of dollars worth of F-35 wings and sophisticated helmet sets would be manufactured
in Israel, paid for with U.S. military aid. Furthermore, depot-level maintenance will occur
in a facility operated by Israeli Aeronautics Industries rather than at a Lockheed facility
abroad.
The Lightning's sophisticated flight computer and ground-based logistics system has
become a matter of contention with many F-35 operators. Foreign air forces would like to
have greater access to the F-35's computer source codes to upgrade and modify them as they
see fit without needing to involve external parties -- but Lockheed doesn't want to hand
over full access for both commercial and security-based reasons. Israeli F-35Is uniquely
will have an overriding Israeli-built C4 program that runs "on top" of Lockheed's operating
system.
"Right, which is why Denmark bought the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
Buying American weaponry is often a combination of tribute, corruption and paying protection
money."
Please. They bought the F-35 because it is the best aircraft they could get, and they
don't trust the Russians. If they wanted to offer tribute, they'd just write a check and buy
another aircraft.
Further, much of the so-called criticism of the F-35 came from non-experts in the subject
or older guys who worked with the now-outdated F-14. The F-35 has made enough progress for me
to believe that it will likely crush anything the Russians have now or in the future. Even if
the Russians could build the Su-57, the F-35 would still win in most contests because 1. its
sensor suite and over the horizon A2A capability + electronic warfare capability will be
appreciably superior 2. it will be built in far larger numbers.
"The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else."
The F-35 will be quite effective against any aircraft those countries currently field. Any
belief to the contrary is either ignorance or delusion. The US isn't spending a trillion
dollars on this thing to fight Trinidad and Tobago.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy
reduces stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"Over-the-horizon A2A capability" has existed for half a century. Previously structuring
our airpower around this concept resulted in high losses in Vietnam.
The real reason for the bubble canopy's elimination (note that the stealthier F-22 and
YF-23 both have bubble canopies) is the ridiculous insistence on the same platform being used
for a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan placed right in the middle of the fuselage.
If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area only and it
can't carry a large missile load.
Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar.
The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones.
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There
is no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive
sensor suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as
good, and probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to
the contrary is wishful thinking.
I have no doubt in the capability to produce and field top-class avionics. What I do doubt
is the idea that we produce (and always will produce) superior avionics to anyone else.
Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and even tiny Israel all produce AESA radars. The US lagged
Russia (and Europe) in IRST for decades. The US is far behind on low-frequency radar.
The US can easily afford it.
You'll note that this was originally about F-35 exports . A solution with high
operating costs and low sortie rates is problematic for anyone, but especially undesirable
for a small power.
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already
detect stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the
90s.
Detection is not useless. It allows you to vector interceptors until they get close enough
for a radar lock or can identify the target with IRST or visual tracking.
Incompetent Arabalonians. Norman Scwhartzkopf stated that if you'd reversed the weapons on
each side but kept the personnel and training the same, the Allied coalition would've still
handily won. Serbia incidentally did successfully shoot down an F-117, which largely owed
itself to the skill of the operator in question and poor tactics on the part of NATO.
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s.
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan).
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation
weapons that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be
any different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you
have displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be
based on anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
[...]
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
[...]
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of.
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this moot.
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat.
The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement.
The Kremlin would have killed the organ grinder (Boris Abramovich Berezovsky) not the
monkey. Litvinenko virtually committed suicide. People become depressed when they are
exiles.. Litvinenko publicly accused Putin of the apartment bombings by Chechens that killed
hundreds of Russians so he must have had some inkling that Putin could be dangerous.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you, and if they have the means and opportunity then it is not the biggest surprise in the
world if you give them the motive and you are killed by a method that is as good as a signed
confession they did it. Putin wanted Litvinenko to know who had put an end to him.
That was the whole point of using alpha radiation; nice and slow all the while knowing who
did it. Putin is very like another famous Vlad.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you
I have fantasized about killing people who had seriously harmed me or the public. But I
have never fantasized about killing a clown, nor can I ever imagine fantasizing about it. I
cannot imagine anyone who is not a psychopath fantasizing about killing a clown. By accusing
Putin of the house explosions and converting to Islam etc. Litvinenko totally jumped the
shark. He was a clown, a tool used by others.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you have
just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on that
assumption.
Litvinenko was a poor devil, incapable of harming Putin. If anyone harmed Putin, it's
Berezovsky or the western media which gave a platform to poor devils like Litvinenko. Do you
think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful people wielding
them?
That is pretty incredible, however, because of your reputation perhaps she was
afraid of some sort of retribution for being critical of you? I notice that you often like to
taunt me on by calling me a 'coward' for using a moniker instead of presenting you with my
true identity. Whether deserved or not, many feel that you're some sort of a Kremlin
Stooge nutcase, Mickey. From Srebrenica Genocide Denier to this:
friend of mike averko | April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Reply
I have known mike averko for a very long time and wish to warn all of you who feel safe
mocking him and his rants this is not someone you want to get angry . HE IS
INSANE!!! I have seen how this man lives and it is not that of a healthy person, it is
that of someone insane. Make your comments but don't ever let this man into yuour life in
any way or you will end up being sorry.
This is why I choose to shield my true identity from you, Mickey. Who needs any grief from
a Kremlin Stooge wacko?
The machine that draws the numbers for a lottery manages to pick 7 winning numbers every
week. It never fails to pick the winning numbers. Is this an amazing feat? The numbers it
picks are the winning numbers while millions of lottery players have great difficulty to pick
the winning numbers and spend millions of dollar on it while the cost to the machine is just
few bucks.
Shakespeare picked 458 'winning' letters but if you would try to reproduce them in the
same sequence by random selections it becomes probabilistically impossible task.
Finding a winning sonnet by Shakespeare for the Universe was not a probabilistic feat just
as it is not for the lottery machine to pick the winning numbers. It all comes down to the
meaning and when that meaning is assigned. You assigned a special meaning to this particular
sequence of 458 letters just like lottery players assign special meaning to 7 numbers picked
by a machine.
Although you show a lot of promise, unfortunately there are still a few rough edges. Don't
concentrate so much on your less than honorable pedigree, but work on improving your
emotional dilemmas. AP is a medical doctor, and has diagnosed some of your ailments. Listen
to him, for he's a pure blood Slav. And you know how great the Slavic race is. (I know that
you can overcome!).
On the subject of of agriculture, it should be noted that Rostelmash has done ok for a big
sovok behemoth and has had at least some success exporting west. It's combines are
competitive with the American makes but not Claas, they've also been able to buy up
varsatile. This is quite surprising given the fact that rostov has a reputation for being a
rough and corrupt place. Ak, any thoughts?
You make it sound like being a Slav is like being a member of an exclusive club. How
exclusive can it be if you – the Ukrainians are in it? I would say that that is setting
the standards pretty low. Don't worry about my "emotional" dilemmas. I am happy with who I
am, which can't be said about you people. You seem quite torn between your Western European
heritage and your humble Slavic origin that gets in the way of being recognized as one of the
nations that are pillars of western civilization which everybody agrees that you are.
USSR engaged in intensive agricultural motorization earlier than any country other than
the USA and Canada. It was also fairly early to intensive chemicalization, mainly beaten out
by Germany and America.
In the postwar period the share of capital investment devoted to agriculture varied from
11.8% in 1946-1950 to a peak of 20.1% in 1971-1975.
Not surprising there is something of a positive legacy. Main failures of postwar Soviet
agriculture were distribution and processing. Not enough roads or trucks, inadequate cold
chain, too few food processing plants, etc.
Belarus also has a successful agricultural machinery sector as well.
Heavy transportation machinery was generally a Soviet success story, probably because not
only are they producer goods but they also require routine replacement. Thus unlike other
capital goods in centrally-planned economies they weren't kept in service long past the time
they ceased to be efficient. The irrational "development" of Siberia also increased the size
of this sector and the quality of its output.
Lastly, worth noting Rostelmash has been privately owned since 2000.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it.
If this is the case then obviously its 'kinematic performance' is secondary. If you can
see the enemy before it can see you and you have weapons to engage the enemy then obviously
your top speed and acceleration are not that important. The missile you launch is faster than
your top speed and your enemy's top speed.
But there are doubts. How much the stealth technology is a hype? Is information about
radar cross sections of various planes credible?
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders. Western intelligence simply would not
dare frame Putin because the Russians would become too jumpy. Yeltsin almost started WW3
in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West was framing Putin repeatedly and
he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then something like the Black Brant
scare occurred.
Litvinenko was a poor devil.
I don't think he was a happy man.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you
have just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on
that assumption.
I happen to believe that Putin is deliberately trying to alienate the West with these
assassinations because he wants Russia to remain proudly independent after he is gone. Yet he
has to justify that policy to his close associates many of whom who love the Western
lifestyle and making money. It is like Hitler having to explain his attack on the USSR to his
generals and Goebbels by saying it was necessary to remove that threat from the east before
moving against Britain. Obviously Hitler really longed to conquer Russia, and it seems likely
to me that Putin wants to initiate schismogenesis with the West. He probably is not telling
his cronies that though, there will be some security pretext.
Do you think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful
people wielding them?
Putin has more power than anyone else on Earth, I should have thought that was obvious by
now. He wants to exert control when he is no longer there, and that means setting Russia on a
course that cannot be altered, and consulting/implicating the entire future leadership
cadre.
John Deere does very well in Russia because they own a local factory. They seem to be the
combine of choice because they have faster parts distribution than Class. Rostelmash does
better than it used to but the really big commercial farms and associated contractors buy the
best machines. The operators on the ex cooperatives, usually farmed under (corrupt) rental
arrangements tend to use Rostelmash, insofar as they buy new.
In BVR combat kinematic performance is indeed secondary to the performance of sensors,
electronic warfare equipment, and missiles.
But not irrelevant. Higher top speed allows for longer-ranged missile shots. Faster
acceleration (and, for that matter, turning performance) allows for faster escape from the
combat zone.
Note how BVR optimized interceptors like the F-102/106, MiG-25/31, F-4, F-111B, English
Electric Lightning, and so forth had great top speeds and excellent acceleration. They were
however lacking in maneuverability as it was not intended for them to dogfight (hence the bad
air combat performance over North Vietnam).
China's Chengdu J-20 is a modern stealth aircraft designed for this role. The F-35 is not.
It's basically a tactical strike fighter. Historical analogues would be the F-100, F-105,
SEPECAT Jaguar, Su-24, and so forth.
Tactical strike fighters of the classic style are dubious today since multi-mode radars
and PGMs have made fighters very capable of ground attack.
Stealth isn't hype unless you believe the maximalist fanboy nonsense from the 1990s.
If indeed F-22 and F-35 have several orders of magnitude smaller cross-sections (RCS) than
other jet fighters then obviously it is a huge advantage that if utilized will render small
differences (±10%) in speed and acceleration completely unimportant.
You're right about that, and I'm glad to be different from you. At least people aren't
leaving messages about me at blogs warning them that I might be dangerous to deal with.
'Sbrebrenica Genocide Denier' is nothing to be proud about, Mickey.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central American drug cartels?
I quite like that idea!
Provide sophisticated arms to everybody (no matter how crazy) with an ability to cause
grief to the U.S.
The U.S. objective is not to punish Russia or weaken Russia. The U.S. objective is to
destroy Russia as a sovereign nation. This is war to the death. There can be no negotiation
with the U.S. The only hope of forcing the Americans to adopt a sane policy is to make the
costs of their current policy catastrophically high.
The U.S. is obviously stronger but a strong man will usually back down if faced with
someone crazy and unpredictable. Putin needs to be crazy and unpredictable.
And Russia needs to target America's lapdogs, like the British. Perhaps let them know that
if it ever came to nuclear war London would be a priority target.
U.S. "public opinion" is literally the collective opinion of dumbed-down, amoral idiots.
In fact, the word "opinion" is too dignified for this – "braindead recantation of
MSM-fed government propaganda" would be a better description.
It's optimized for certain wavelengths and expected receiver locations.
Thus stealth aircraft can for instance be readily detected by low frequency radars.
Stealth is still useful as low frequency radars are too bulky to fly, and they indicate a
general location rather than a precise location.
Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually, acoustically, through their own electronic
emissions, and through their heat signatures. Employment of weapons, obviously, compromises
stealth as well.
There are also degrees of stealth. The F-22 for instance is considered an all-aspect
stealth design, at least in the higher frequency bands. The Have Blue, MBB Lampyridae, F-117,
B-2, and YF-23 were as well.
The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. This of
course reflects the fact that it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, but
incompetent American force planning is now pressing it into that role.
Lastly, while stealth is obviously a good capability (hence why everyone is following
America's lead on it), it's not without trade-offs. Stealth is lost if weapons are carried
externally. Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive (though the
Japanese may have solved this problem). Because stealth requires precision shaping of the
airframe, it is difficult to modify the airframe for future requirements.
"But it's not an invisibility cloak." – Nobody talks about invisibility. RCS
matters. You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
"The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. " –
Presumably it will show its rear to its enemy only when the enemy will be already falling
down after being hit.
"Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually " – Nobody argues invisibility.
"it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter". – It all depend on
superiority over whom. Anyway this is a vague and pompous term.
"Stealth is lost if weapons are carried externally." – What good are those weapons
for if you are shot before you see your stealthy enemy?
"Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive". – Yes. That's why
Russians do not have it.
Listen. I do not really care about this issue and I do not know much about it. I just
responded to your arguments which are mostly rhetorical in nature among at diminishing
importance of the orders of magnitude lower RCS of F-22 and F-35 comparing to that of their
potential opponents.
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders.
Or something else neither of us thought of. It's a false dichotomy when we have no
information at all about the whole thing, the only thing we know is that the British are
lying.
Western intelligence simply would not dare frame Putin because the Russians would become
too jumpy.
But that's just your model. Maybe they wouldn't become jumpy, or maybe the Western
intelligence services would dare frame him anyway.
By the way it's interesting that you managed to draw a psychological profile of Putin
based on just two cases a decade apart, and Putin only did it twice in his whole reign. Sure
if he enjoyed torturing his critics he'd do it more, wouldn't he?
Yeltsin almost started WW3 in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West
was framing Putin repeatedly and he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then
something like the Black Brant scare occurred.
Risk management is my job. People don't think about risks that way. They assign a very low
probability to events like the Black Brant scare, and anyway probably Putin would just
realize it was only one rocket. There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to
launch than Yeltsin.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
However, ground sites lack many countermeasures against incoming missile launches and
cannot lock onto low-visibility planes from the front, so even if its general location is
known, there's not much that a SAM site can do to it in theory. Thus, it has a very
effective, but limited role.
This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries.
I wish I could say the same thing about the Ukrainians. You are showing nothing but
regress since 1991, but I don't expect that you'll agree with that. It's one of the side
effects of having a thick head.
You know how the Ukrainians got their name? It's from the Latin Cranium for scull.
Basically, what it means is that when any new idea (or old one for that matter) tries to
penetrate the thick Ukrainian sculls – it has to make a U turn when it reaches their
fortified cranial structures – U Cranium – therefore Ukraine. Get it? It's pretty
discouraging actually.
A good case could be made that we don't know how these jets would perform under the
conditions of a real world war. But I think it's always the best bet that it will be the
American weapons which perform the best. That's simply the way to bet.
It's possible that many of their weapons systems wouldn't perform as advertised. Some
would perform better than thought or for roles they weren't designed for.
It's a very safe decision to buy the F-35, which is now not even that expensive. It's
possible that it won't be worth much in a real war against comparable opponents, but this
could be true of any other platform: these weapons are only tried out against vastly inferior
opponents.
You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
He will usually have a vague idea where you are. Currently it's not possible to launch a
missile based on that vague knowledge, but will it stay like that forever? A lot depends on
other systems like air defense and AWACS.
Anyway, my original point was that probably buying the F-35 is not based on politics, it's
a safe decision for those with deep enough pockets to buy the best available fighter jet.
Even if under the circumstances of a real war it turned out to be bad: it could happen to a
number of other weapons systems anyway, and you cannot really tell in advance which ones.
The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier
But wouldn't the idea be that you get closer to the enemy without being detected? Your
argument might work against BVR combat in general, but more against non-stealth BVR combat
than against stealth: stealthy planes will probably employ their BVR weapons from closer
range than non-stealthy planes.
If BVR air-to-air missiles work at all, they work much better with stealthy planes.
Regardless of whether against peer or non-peer opponents.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do not
understand) I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o
being detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time
for the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
I realize this is a complex game with many possible strategies and tactics with many
parameters involved. For each strategy there are decision regions where the different
parameters dominate what will be the optimal tactic. Furthermore we really do not know how
effective various countermeasures are but I suspect that they might be decisive. But if they
fail and planes get close to each other within the visual range then obvious completely
different parameters might be decisive including the human factor.
I won't argue with you on this subject because I know you were raised by video games so
you now better at least in the realm of video games model. I would not argue with Mowgli
about the purpose and efficacy of howling at the moon. Perhaps it was a sophisticated
countermeasure.
I actually have never played a flight simulator within recent memory. As far as I'm aware,
none of them really calculate the issues of missile flight with any degree of accuracy and
treat guidance systems like some sort of magic. My comments are actually speculations from
conversations with military pilots.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do
not understand)
Missiles have extremely limited flight times and their flight characteristics degrade
after launch. Disrupting either their guidance or their flight negates the kill chain.
I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o being
detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time for
the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
This is possible, but ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond
visual range. Its possible that this is the idea, coupled with the Block III Sidewinders
which are designed against a number of countermeasures, but that seems to have been cancelled
for some reason.
If you don't know the composite materials used, you can not give a correct RCS, and you
can not tell just by looking, the physics don't work like that!
So at least we have the word of the US Air Force and Lockheed regarding the stealthiness
of their planes (these are probably not outright lies, but might differ from reality in
either direction: they might be modest to hide their true capabilities, or, more likely,
exaggerate and give a number only true under ideal conditions for a specific type of radar
etc. ), but regarding the supposedly 5th generation Chinese or Russian jets we have just very
rough estimates based on the shape and some assumptions about their coating.
So many US sanctions and interdictions , to friends and foes alike , will end up isolating
the US .
The US pressure to the EU not to trade with Russia , Iran and other countries has provoked
a deep resentment in the EU and has turned the US into a very unreliable partner , and even a
dangerous " friend " .
The better part of four decades ago, President Reagan made a joke about outlawing the Soviet
Union and the press and the left went apeshit. Now Congress seriously proposes legislation
that would essentially outlaw Russia, and the press and the left are all for it.
ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond visual range
How many seconds will the stealth pilot have to identify the target and fire its missiles?
Sixty? Hundred-twenty? Thirty? Even thirty seconds must be enough for a well enough trained
pilot.
There might be issues with how to leave the scene after having killed an opponent, if
other enemies are still there, because it's less stealthy from other angles. I guess we're
not the first to think about it, so probably there's some solution. At the very least, I
wouldn't expect them to perform worse than the 4th gen planes.
I think even the production of the F-16 is about to end.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though that's
not saying much, considering the price differential.
Hungary also has Gripens, though we didn't fully equip them until recently, and I don't
think we spend enough on training the pilots.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia
after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war. The whole
slow-motion drama, with all its attendant false flags (MH17, the Skripals, gassings in Syria,
etc), numerous rounds of sanctions and specious rhetoric including accusations of "stealing
the election" from Hillary, since Putin checked Obama's attempt to seize Russia's Crimean
base and recruit another hostile NATO member on that country's frontier has been meant to
convince the American public that Russia is our country's blood enemy, that it is run by an
insane dictator the equal of Hitler, and that the consequent world war will have been all
Putin's fault in spite of America bending over backwards to make peace with those vicious
mongrels from the steppes.
As a commentor above said, I'd hate to be killed by a Russian nuke directed at my city
only because of an insane American leadership, but I'd equally hate for tens of millions of
Russians (and others) to be exterminated by our weapons simply to further an agenda being
promoted by the likes of Jeff Bezos, Sheldon Adelson and the other plutocrats who really pull
all the strings in Washington to benefit themselves plus their Saudi and Israeli
co-conspirators in some great game to rule the world. I'd say that Washington is about poised
to commit the greatest crime in the history of the human race, and chances are good that it
will be the last.
"Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority
fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously
telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs
their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures."
That's not quite true. The ability to shoot a barrage of sophisticated missiles at an
opponent that can't shoot back beyond visual range should be quite useful in combat; these
missiles will also close the gap much sooner than you would think, so it's not like an enemy
is going to have all day to deal with incoming threats. Further, electronic countermeasures
won't be perfect as most A2A missiles fielded by the US will have systems designed to defeat
them. The F-35 will also be fielded in large enough numbers such that they'll just overwhelm
opponents with their stealth ability. Combine the F-35 with the F-18 or F-22, and you'll have
a very effective air dominance force.
"This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries."
I expect the F-35 to do quite well against both Russia and China in helping to establish
air dominance. The F-35 will additionally have utility against surface S2A units. The navy
could overwhelm Russian and Chinese air defenses – even assuming they are quite
effective – by coordinating strikes with F-22s and F-35s. Those air defenses will go
active, and the F-35 will then be able to hit many of them with a degree of survivability +
coordinate with surface ships to smoke them out, mobile or not.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to
Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.
I have never put much thought into these issues. But now after reading comments and some
articles I realized that this is a fascinating topic and that there are many people somewhere
who study it, write simulations and developed optimal algorithms for all possible situations
where they have input data on all plane and missile characteristics except with only partial
knowledge of enemy characteristics and efficacy of countermeasures. So I think that
everything has been already calculated. When and what to shoot and when and where to turn and
when to retreat and so on. And as new data are flowing in with the outcome of the first
missile or the arrival of another enemy plane the master program is just bringing in
pre-calculated solutions for each new situations. And then every geometric configuration must
have been analyzed and optimal actions has been found. Furthermore optimal configuration were
found about how to fly , in what formations, with what speeds and so on. Mathematically this
problem might not be harder than a chess game on multiple boards and thus I think a
completely autonomous AI system must exist where pilot is really not needed. The only big
unknown are countermeasures. You do not have them in chess. Can pilot be better in making
some decisions in the present of countermeasure than computer? I doubt it.
Now the question is who is better in this game? Russians or Americans? It all comes down
to money. How many good mathematicians, computer programmers and physicists I can employ? In
USSR at secret sites like Arzamas-16 they had departments where 1000 or so PhDs in math
(many, many women) worked. In Yeltsin times and probably before they mostly drank tea and
coffee, organized birthday celebrations and send designated ones to stand in lines to do
shopping. And it all fell apart. But in the US DARPA and Aerospace R&D continued w/o a
break. So I would not hesitate to bet on Americans that they have significantly better
systems. Another question is about spying. Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D
and no longer enamored with the Soviet Union, so it is more likely that India and China has
know more about it and obviously Israel but through more official channels. But the fact that
F-22 was not donated to Israel yet may suggest that there are still some boundaries within
American MIC that are off limits even to our beloved Jews.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though
that's not saying much, considering the price differential.
You don't ask for the "best", you ask for the right system.
Unless you need a stealth strike fighter (and don't mind Lockheed's involvement), the F-35
does not have to be the right one.
In Hungary's case, it is more important to have enough jets for air patrol duty.
Can pilot be better in making some decisions in the present of countermeasure than
computer? I doubt it.
I doubt it. It's open ended, and the number of variations practically infinite. The
computer can do most things way better than a human, but then could succumb to stupidity in
some unknown situation, like the Tesla charging at full speed into the firetruck. Is the
Tesla autopilot better than a well trained professional human, like a rally race driver? I
don't think so, especially in unexpected (for the computer) situations, where the human would
just do the easy and sensible thing, but not the computer.
Anyway, the US warplanes are still flown by human pilots. Of course, most things which
could be automated are automated, and the logical conclusion is fully autonomous drones
flying without much input from their handlers in underground bunkers.
Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D and no longer enamored with the Soviet
Union, so it is more likely that India and China has know more about it and obviously
Israel but through more official channels.
Do you think that one of the things Israel pays Putin for being so friendly to him is US
military tech? They did sell Russia some drones back in the Medvedev days, but nothing more
recent can be found. But I'd be surprised if Putin didn't think about it. I also think it's
not above Netanyahu to sell Russia American secrets. They gave such secrets to the USSR, and
they also helped China more recently. I'm sure that if there's anything going on, the MSM
wouldn't be reporting much on it. They also rarely wrote about the extent of the Israel-South
Africa arms trade, and things only got worse recently.
"The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s."
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In a
real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
"F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan)."
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to sell
the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35 should
be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any other
country save perhaps Israel.
"This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of."
Please. Extrapolation from a set of known facts and historical precedent is hardly
projection. What you've done is classic deflection.
"Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this
moot."
The aircraft you quoted are certainly not superior, so the issue is hardly moot.
"Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat."
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that you
can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance. Kinematic
performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a decisive
advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any issues with
the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm opponents +
combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
"The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement."
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these craft
– thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad idea after
all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
"If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area "
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
"Small number of missiles."
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
"Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar."
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
"Flying wing."
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability and
maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or in a
variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role fighter.
It will do BVR just fine.
"The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones."
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by pointing
out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when building the
craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
You don't need to convince me. You'll need to convince Russian kleptocrats, who've been
sending their kids to live in the West since 1991, and who have kept their (stolen) money in
the West.
And reiner Tor , you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom,
but getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
The fact is asserting dominance in Eastern Europe will be a lot easier for Russia to
accomplish, than confronting USA directly, and it is something I would probably do before I
started threatening New York and London with nuclear devastation. You gotta make your threats
credible you know. Credibility doesn't come from making scary faces and shouting loudly, it's
earned.
Your Croatian neighbors are still operating Mig-21 and will get second-hand
((((F-16)))).
And your Austrian neighbors are unhappy with their Eurofighters.
Gripens are better than alternatives and nothing.
No, I don't. In fact, I think the American Deep State is nuts. I have great respect for
Russians and their military. I am simply pointing out facts: the F-35 isn't the chump some
think it is; do not believe any random internet poster when he says this thing won't work.
I've seen enough to know that it will and that you should be afraid of what it can do in
large numbers.
As I said earlier, the Russians should just dump all Hollywood movies and video games onto
a server and call it MegaUpload 2. Hurt an industry most Trump voters despise anyway and you
might be able to turn republicans against their warmongering representatives in congress who
are pushing for sanctions, etc.
Actually, it means "pure fool," "reines Tor" would be "pure gate" (not door), and it comes
from the Wagner opera Parsifal, where the protagonist is a pure fool, enlightened by
compassion. I'd probably choose a funnier handle today, but ultimately it doesn't matter.
This point of false dichotomy is very important. Everything at this point, points to the
fact that there was no nerve agent employed against the Skripals and that they were simply
knocked out by some chloroform like substance. The fact that they survived, and recovered
without any problems, is irrefutable proof of this.
Therefore a false dichotomy is employed in order to, we can say mentally sodomise people
into believing that the only option is that the Kremlin did it.
I see people stating in comments sections in British newspapers that the official story is
bullshit but that they simply can't believe that their own government would disperse CWs
throughout their country, however this is a mute point as it has been disproven that CWs were
used at all and that the obvious conclusion is that they were simply drugged and held against
their will while their oh so benevolent government spun an endlessly shifting fairytale,
growing ever more convoluted and self contradictory by the day.
Even if both NATO and the EU collapsed, and a war broke out with one or some of our
neighbors, neither Austria nor Croatia would be likely enemies. Of our NATO allies, both
Romania and Slovakia were more likely enemies. I hope it won't happen, because both are
seriously stronger than us.
The F-16 is no longer in production (though maybe a restart is planned?), but most
operators are happy enough with it.
Here, locally, I find it interesting that the commenter "Sean" got sodomized himself or is
just trying to sodomize us. There is one recurring almost below the radar theme in his
comments: war with Iran and the opportunity of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it will
bring. He might be right about it though I still hope this will be prevented while he seems
to be welcoming it. And for some reason he seems to need Putin dead or compromised for this
scenario to happen.
Public opinion in Russia is a lot like this actually. It seems that state-tv interrupted
its anti-Western programming during World Cup, which caused approval of both US and EU to
spike into positive territory for the first time since 2014.
Somebody SHOULD investigate: Michael McFaul, Samantha Power, Robert Mueller, Peter
Strzok, George Soros, William Browder, Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Christopher
Steele, John Podesta, Barack Obama, and John Brennan.
Congress has done a SHlTTY Job of it. Perhaps Vladimir Putin SHOULD be allowed to
publicly question these traitors, in the USA.
And reiner Tor, you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom, but
getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
I don't fear it much, it'd simply be a stupid policy. I also don't like ethnic cleansing
and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a requirement if you were to occupy
Ukraine.
The predictable result would be a state of emergency in Central Europe and a strong
mobilization against Russia. Military expenditures would quickly rise to 5% of GDP in Central
Europe, but it'd rise around Europe.
But actually some kind of military action in Ukraine as a direct response to American
sanctions might make sense. Just don't expect Ukrainians or neighboring peoples to greet you
with flowers. So you might bomb some military targets recently installed by the
Americans.
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
AK: In the future, please unite your multiple low effort one-sentence posts into one. Since
they aren't very high quality, fill up valuable screen real estate, and splicing them
together takes too much time on my part, I will otherwise have to just start deleting them.
Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO & Two Bars, MC (14 August 1896 – 7 May 1917) was an
English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was the United
Kingdom's leading flying ace, with 44 victories.
These sanctions are complex, well thought out, most probably not by Goyim.
Now We can see that Scripal affair was definitely false flag.
These sanctions are obviously not a punishment.
..
These sanctions are telling Mother Russia to get on her knees, or die.
.
These are not really sanctions. This is Ultimatum.
.
Everybody should understand that.
Putin cannot be read like a book, but we can be confident that he is capable of deceiving
even his closest confidants, for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin .
There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to launch than Yeltsin.
All other things being equal, but Yeltsin was never framed for murder by the West even
once, so he never had Russian forces on red alert; never had the safety catches off
. Yet in the Black Brant scare Yeltsin actually activated the nuclear keys , something
that never happened even in the Cuban Missile crisis. In circumstances where there was
already a hair trigger because of some misunderstanding and Yeltsin had a too much of a
hangover to think clearly and recognize bad advice, he might well have launched. Putin would
never knowingly launch first, but the opening of move of a nuclear first strike would
be a high altitude air burst to blind the victim's radar so waiting for the first nuclear
detonation would not be an option.
If he and his country had been framed for murder twice in a row, Putin would take the some
of the safeties off of the Russian nuclear deterrent because it was not working at the normal
settings. All it would then take is someone, possibly at a low level, to get careless and we
are in the danger zone. The Russians do not think America is likely to attack them out of the
blue, but they do not rule out the possibility (Reagan said that was what most surprised him
about the Soviet leadership once he came to know them).
Wealthy Russians put their money in offshore British accounts, you seriously think anyone
in their right mind would do that if the British Deep State was capable of deliberately
framing Russia for assassinations. Dirty money from all over the world comes to offshore
British accounts because Britain has the rule of law and the ill gotten gains are safe. It
simply would not pay Britain to behave like a banana republic in the way you are suggesting.
What you are suggesting is like MI5 & 6 stealing the gold out of the Bank of England,
except it would be more plausible because there would be something in it for them. South
Korean had the death penalty for capital flight. Putin is less crude, he is using the British
sanctions against his circle (and you must be associated with circle to get rich in Russia)
to force dodgy Russians and their money to stay put .
Putin's long term objective is to nullify foreign influences, which boils down to Western
soft power and money. The Russian and Western elite were growing together before he started
the high profile assassinations, now the divergence is gaining a momentum of its own. The
more the West retaliates the better Putin likes it, hence arrest of Maria Butina and the
heavy boots of the bots are grist to Putin's mill, the more amateurish the espionage against
the West, the better. That is why the
OPSEC–oblivious GRU suit his purpose so much
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/06/the-gru-the-russian-intelligence-agency-behind-the-headlines
"The GRU regards itself as a war-fighting instrument. Yes, it gathers conventional
intelligence but its culture is much more military," said Mark Galeotti, an expert on
Russian security issues and the country's intelligence agencies. "Although only a minority
of GRU officers are Spetsnaz, it has an impact when part of your service are
commandos."
Putin sacked the vast majority of the old GRU; the new commander Sergun was low
ranking (although he was to be promoted to Colonel General after he designed the Donbass
uprising) and was keen on contacts with the US, but died mysteriously in 2016, and the ones
left know better than to ask questions about the ultimate purpose or ulterior motive of
goading the US. Anyway, Putins's objectives in all this are not to get away with anything, he
wants the bad public relations, he wants the West to reject Russia and all its works,
all the better to keep Russian away from Western influence. I just think the idea of the West
deliberately pushing a proud nuclear armed power into confusion such as Andropov was in
during Able Archer would be foolhardy beyond belief.
Brilliant. And I like how you are able to weave in your almost non-existent knowledge of
Latin too! This definitely proves that your IQ is in the 99* range. Like I say, you're
showing real progress each and every day. Soon, I suspect that readers of this blog will be
giving you 'agreements' each and every time you write something here, like your buddy
Janissary !
On the other hand, the more such crises there will be between nuclear armed states, the
more likely that one of those will result in a nuclear war. Humans (or machines, for that
matter) will inevitably miscalculate once in a while, and those might result in one side
believing it's about to be obliterated, so that it can "use it or lose it." All kinds of
stupid (or seemingly stupid) factors might get into this, like sleep deprivation, extreme
stress, fear of shame or loss of face, etc. People have committed murder-suicide under all
kinds of circumstances, starting a nuclear war as an act of final desperation is certainly
not out of the realm of possibilities.
So while nuclear weapons greatly diminish the likelihood of a world war, it certainly
doesn't make it impossible, and, on a long enough timeline, its likelihood will approach
1.
Their armies are certainly much stronger, in terms of artillery or armored forces for
example. Their air forces are not, but with the very low number of planes, it wouldn't be
decisive anyway. And they're both in the process of buying F-16s, unless I'm mistaken. I
think once these are over, the Slovakian Air Force will be roughly as strong as the Hungarian
one, or somewhat stronger, while the Romanian will be multiple times stronger.
The Slovak military is somewhat smaller on paper (in terms of troop numbers) than the
Hungarian, but even that might be just a paper advantage. At least Slovakia is a smaller
country (roughly half the size of Hungary), but Romania is vastly bigger, and its military is
even larger than would be proportional.
Anyway, I don't think any Hungarian government would have the appetite to wage war against
either of these.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and the
world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory. I don't see EU Member States
raising any objection to further sanctions. Quite the contrary, in fact. The EU is the
principal victim of Putin's actions and is therefore the principal beneficiary of sanctions.
Don't forget that the fight with Putin began over an attempt by him to prevent Ukraine
signing an association agreement with the EU. The idea that the EU Member States are just
dying to resume trade with Russia is a US internet myth (like so much else about Europe!).
OK the GRU did not use deadly nerve gas on the traitor Skripal because he survived, but by
the same token the GRU did not use knockout gas in the Dubrovka Theater because they killed
hundreds of innocent Russian hostages. At least we can agree GRU did use flamethrowers and
heavy machine guns in the Beslan school, because they shot and burned hundreds of Ossetian
children to death.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and
the world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory.
Look I know you are another dim witted Ukrainian pretending to be an Anglo Saxon, but even
for you this logic is beyond ridiculous.
President Trump has not dismissed the idea that Russian investigators meet with, and
question, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. President Trump has said that
Vladimir Putin tendered him an "incredible offer": that, in exchange for letting Robert
Mueller's team question the twelve indicted Russian intelligence officers thought to have
participated in the cyber-meddling in the 2016 election, Russian counterparts would get the
chance to question McFaul, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama years. Rather than
dismiss this idea out of hand, Trump, according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is "going to work
with his team, and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on this front."
At a summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Trump, Putin floated the idea of inviting
U.S. special counsel investigators to Russia for the questioning of a dozen Russian
intelligence officials indicted last week as part of the special counsel's inquiry into
Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. In return, Putin wanted Russian authorities to be
allowed to interrogate a roughly equal number of Americans, including McFaul, for supposed
illicit activities. At Monday's post-summit news conference with Putin at his side, Trump --
sounding intrigued rather than indignant -- called that an "incredible" offer.
What is the problem with a joint investigation of Michael McFALL, on American Soil.
I have no idea what is going on in Putin's mind, but I can see what he is doing and if he
wants closer relations with the West, his way of showing it seems odd. Do I need to read
Dostoevsky to understand Putin?
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
But the sanctions are happening anyway. We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of
whether or not we are going to invade. Actually, as an economist, I don't think we need a
law. What we need is to make sure that the vital sectors of the economy do not rely on US
financial system, by converting oil trade into non-dollar currencies for example.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a
country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern
Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more. Doing so will impose costs on the USA.
Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking
tensions in Eastern Europe.
And if USA suddenly grows a brain and declines to play along, Eastern NATO members will
begin re-orienting their foreign relations towards appeasement of Russia instead. That's what
weak people do.
I also don't like ethnic cleansing and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a
requirement if you were to occupy Ukraine.
Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine! I would drive Galicia
population into Poland and other neighboring countries. There would be millions of refugees.
This by itself will seriously destabilise NATO's "Eastern flank". There could be Russian
agents among the refugees, allowing us to seamlessly move from the invasion of the Ukraine to
a campaign of hybrid warfare against Eastern NATO members.
NATO will react to invasion of the Ukraine by positioning to support an insurgency in the
Western part of the country. Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern
Poland – wouldn't that be fun?
Probably better than trying to understand things by reading comic books (Hollywood movies
are the same), which is pretty much what the US establishment uses for their thinking.
for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin "
Doesn't that apply to Obama? Will that not apply to future presidents? Doesn't it apply to
the sitting US senators and congress ? Doesn't this "fooling" apply every time US senators
and congress apply more sanction on Iran and justify their earlier "fooling" when they failed
to stop Trump get out of JCPOA?
It does because majority of Americans supported the deal and wanted to keep the deal.
"fooling" is a little more complex in America that it is in Papua NewGuinea . But fooling
it is.
It is like cries against "fake news ' charges leveled against Facebook infowar or
intercept or antiwar or common dreams by WaPo and NYT and FOX/CNN – being bad because
those lead to violences.
The violences perpetrated against Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Syria are based on lies and
been made possible by Fake News of CNN NYT . The latest servile and sinsiter attempt by NYT
to start talking of banned CW use by Syrians to kill more Syrians is nothing but 'fooling and
lying" fakery of news what they accuse Putin and Russian bot of but without proof.
Congress did not do their job when the CIA, DOJ & FBI ILLEGALLY:
Surveiled citizens. Investigated the Trump Presidential Campaign. Paid Christopher Steele to fabricate a pack of God Damned Lies. Told the FISA Court a pack of God Damned Lies. Obstructed a congressional investigation, into that pack of God Damned Lies. Fabricated ANOTHER pack of lies about Civil-Wars in Georgia & Ukraine. Fabricated YET ANOTHER pack of lies about the Syrian Civil War & ISIS. Fabricated STILL ANOTHER pack of lies about Russia President Putin.
Don't confuse Ukrainians with Ukies. Ukrainians are humans, with their stronger and weaker
points, like all humans, whereas Ukies are the scum of the Earth.
Trump has to thread a fine line with the Neocons and outright JOO firsters in his cabinet who
HATE Putin and the Russians. Push back against these vermin would be good but he probably
wont do it until after the mid terms, we shall see.
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In
a real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
The basic assumption is that over the horizon UHF radar (like Australia's Jindalee system)
detects the F-35, allowing Flankers to use their IRST.
Of course some have disputed the study, as well they should. A major problem with IRST is
its very limited field of view, though pairing this with low frequency radar mitigates
that.
In a real world situation the Su-35 would detect the AMRAAMs before impact rather than be
surprised. Whether or not the AMRAAMs destroy the Su-35 would depend on many factors such
as:
• Number of AMRAAMs fired
• Distance from which AMRAAMs are fired
• Quality of Su-35 countermeasures
• Pilot skill (duh)
Should also be pointed out that the Russians are now fielding L-band AESA radars embedded
in wingtips specifically for counter-VLO purposes. See here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to
sell the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35
should be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any
other country save perhaps Israel.
Chengdu J-20 and J-31 units will most certainly not be capped at 187 units. Fifth
generation fighters will almost certainly proliferate beyond China and Russia as well.
No, the US didn't "need" to sell the F-22 to Japan. But the sale would've strengthened
Allied forces in the Pacific theater, kept the F-22 production line open and cut unit costs,
reduced the American trade deficit, and provided jobs and profits to Americans. The F-22
export ban was an own goal.
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that
you can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance.
Kinematic performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a
decisive advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any
issues with the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm
opponents + combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
This decisive advantage depends on two assumptions:
• Counter-VLO sensors will not be effective (or fielded in adequate numbers), or at
least won't be enough to vector interceptors (whether aircraft or missiles) to the target
• Kill probability of BVR missile shots has improved by two orders of magnitude since
the last air war against a near peer
Obviously, overwhelming the opponent with numbers is always a war winning strategy. NATO
can thus be expected to prevail in any air war against Russia, though not without a bloody
nose.
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these
craft – thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad
idea after all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a
program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
The airframe is inferior to what the US could have done otherwise, and is inferior to
contemporary aircraft. This inferiority was not driven by the stealth does requirement and
thus counts as an own goal.
The B model stems from the Marine Corps remember some battle in the Pacific War where Navy
air support didn't show up. Therefore they must have their own fighters, a logic which
strangely wouldn't apply to the Army.
If our doctrine or experience dictates that a STOVL aircraft is desirable, fine. But given
the limitations of STOVL aircraft, it ought to be a separate design.
Dealing with Chinese strikes at Pacific bases is probably better dealt with by buying more
heavy equipment and training more Seabees. You can patch holes pretty quickly.
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
Here's a thermal image of an F-35 from a modern IR camera:
No IR reduction in the world is going to disguise 45,000 pounds of thrust from a single
nozzle.
Yes, the F-35 has substantially reduced RCS compared to non-VLO aircraft. News at 11. It
has, however, inferior stealth compared to the F-22 (let alone the YF-23).
RAM is useful, but the largest reductions in RCS come from airframe shaping. F-35 is not
optimized in the lower or aft areas. The original X-35 is quite decent here, but this was
changed for the F-35 in order to increase internal weapons load out. Given the original
intention of employing it as a tactical strike fighter, this wasn't unreasonable.
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
This originally concerned exports. Any damn fool can tell you that numerical superiority
is very powerful.
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
In a 1v1 engagement with no supporting elements where the rival fighters approach each
other head on, I agree. But this isn't reflective of actual combat.
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
B-2 is unsuitable for this role owing to the location of its radar:
That said it has been proposed to use the B-1 for this role, which I think is a good
idea.
Drone idea is worth trying, though I'm skeptical of the ability to retain datalinks in an
electromagnetically challenged environment. And drones autonomously launching missiles could
be dubious–but this could be solved by wargaming (if its proven autonomous drones ID
targets better than human pilots, have at it).
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability
and maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or
in a variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role
fighter. It will do BVR just fine.
Stability not a concern with fly-by-wire and thrust vectoring (which the B-2 doesn't have
incidentally, yet is a stable bombing platform).
There is incidentally a trade-off between stability and maneuverability, hence why
fighters from the F-16 on have been designed to be inherently unstable.
But in any case you've been pooh poohing maneuverability here, citing the superiority of
BVR combat. If BVR is your goal, then you want a larger missile load, more powerful/sensitive
sensors, and increased stealth. A flying wing eliminates the issue with resonant effects (if
a vertical surface is less than eight times the size of a radar wavelength, it produces a
resonant effect).
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by
pointing out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when
building the craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
Well I suppose that's true, but whole JSF program would've been better if:
1 – STOVL had been left out
2 – Kinematic performance had been considered important
Have to agree with you: Soros, Browder, MSM owners, Pentagon contractors, and all other
sorts of scum are much bigger threat to the US than Putin, Un, Iranian Ayatollahs, Assad, and
many others. The enemy within is always more dangerous. Especially when that enemy has only
one loyalty: to his/her/its money.
Interesting, a few years ago Algeria had to have Russia redo the electronics in the Su
30′s that it bought because there was some Izraeli electronics in it.
You are forgetting thievery and corruption that provides cover for that thievery. Out of
every dollar spent in the U on "defense", at least 90 cents are stolen, some of the money is
used to buy "patriotic" politicians who pretend not to see the thievery.
No they don't pluck books off shelf . They watch the snippet cribbed from some internet
site on Fox TV /CNN and use it as evidence. That were the sources of evidences they offered
on Syrian using sarin gas.
Last air war between near peers was Vietnam. BVR combat was a total failure.
Radars and missiles have improved a lot since then of course, but so have
countermeasures.
There were BVR kills in Operation Mole Cricket 19 and Desert Storm, but fighting
incompetent Arabalonians doesn't count as near peer. And there were still WVR kills in those
campaigns.
Depending on ROE in a conflict or confused airspace, there will be a need to visually ID
targets on occasion.
The main thing that's changed about dogfighting is that heat seeking missiles can now lock
onto an aircraft from any angle (instead of just behind) and launch from high off boresight.
This makes instantaneous turning performance more importance than sustained turning
performance.
But like I said, if BVR missiles are now truly as miraculous as you think, then the F-35
is an improper design. In fact, so is the F-22 and more or less all other existing fighters.
The idea "fighter" of existing aircraft would be the Airbus A380 launching thousands of
missiles at once
BVR missiles also work just as well from the ground as the air (with some kinematic
disadvantages, and of course can't deal with attackers on the deck). Magical BVR missiles
suggest we should be building a lot more SAM systems.
I bring you the air superiority force of the future:
These senators may or may not be lunatics themselves. This does not change the fact that
they are bought and paid for puppets of lunatics, the US moneyed elites that dangerously
degenerated after 1991. The US used to be a decent country. Not anymore.
There was a joke about Czechoslovakia in the USSR: Czechoslovakia is the most peaceful
country on Earth, it does not interfere even in its own internal affairs. Puppet masters
change (Hitler, USSR, the US), but the policy stands.
i lived in the russian federation for several years (yuzhno sakhalinsk, 2011-2012). i don't
claim to be a russian expert, however, i did not detect any virulent comintern intent amongst
the russians with whom i was privileged to interact. for the most part, they seemed like
everyone else i have come across in my travels on this pitiable orb; they were simply trying
to get by, and were as capitalistic as any crony capitalist in america.
maybe someone with more foreign relations erudition, and experience than i could pen an
expositive on why there exists such animosity betwixt our nations, other than the all to well
known need for a bogeyman so as to facilitate u.s. world hegemony.
for a country which is broke, and which depends upon martial, and venal, intimidation to
achieve/sustain its aims, the impending comeuppance could be very humbling, and decisive.
As Ben Aris notes, the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions
against Oleg Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals
market.
Aluminum has a unique market dynamic which other products with more fungible supply chains
don't share. Sanctions are a work in progress. Treasury has learned from the Rusal matter.
Henceforth it can collapse even bigger Russian companies like Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil
without much fear of a concomitant contagion. Oil and gas are the ultimate fungible
commodities.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly punish Russia
is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the economic
output
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls. Russia's economic
output, measured in GDP, is the same size as New York City's. It has always been a question
of how far the US was willing to go to punish Russia. There are nuclear options in the US
quiver that can pretty much destroy the Russian economy. But so far the US has been applying
relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not
making a value judgement). But the perception that Trump has somehow been captured by Russian
intelligence has ratcheted things up.
Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
It's not a question of trade between Russian and the US. It's a question of trade between
Russia and the world since the US controls the global economy.
Mr Fack , your ukraruina , your jojolistan , is the black hole of Europe , you want to set
Europe on ( atomic ) fire fot the benefit of the usa , and of your corrupted oligarcs .
No real country in Europe respects ukraruina , a very inmoral and stupid pseudocountry .
Ukraruina could have been a golden bridge between the EU and Russia ,and choosed instead to
be a blood trench for the benefit of the oligarcs of the usa . You are a cursed land .
Swarms of missiles? What? With the F-35 capacity of 4 AMRAAM? The ones that haven't been
upgraded, have been unreliable since at least 2016, and would be vulnerable to manuever
anyway? The twenty five plus year old missiles?
Stealth is only stealth to high fidelity radar, as in versus missile locks. That's great,
but low frequency radar will still reveal the location of aircraft for the purpose of general
location. So it's not really a "bolt from blue," which is much more of a ground to air
concept since IR missiles don't telegraph themselves like radar locks do.
Goodness, you are one thick POS.
As I have said before Cyrano is a serious intellectual .you on the other hand are a serious
cretin.
Seeing as it's that part of your menstruation cycle, I thought I would add another proof
of how fake "Ukrainian" history and language is. From a company yet again threatening the
collapse of Ukrainian infrastructure due to an oligarchic dispute:
As you can see the Ukrainian version is a waste of time, when the Russian version exists
..the whole fake language is a fabrication by lowlife scum Banderite tossers who escaped
bestiality charges in the 1940′s/50′s and fled to America/Canada
If Putin wants to retaliate by creating a destabilizing crisis in the USA, he could simply
admit that he has proofs that Trump COLLUDED with Russians operatives to affect the
election.
Trump will be removed and Mike Pence will take over throwing the USA in a deeper crisis.
Is Trump aware of this Damocles sword if he does not stop the Congress for escalating
sanctions?
There are theories, but the mass bueaucracy made some really strange results. In Vietnam,
ROE required visual confirmation of targets to use beyond visual range weapons. Weapons that
homed into flares because they produced "heat."
Well, that worked about as well as could be expected.
Well, no, Austria-Hungary gave an ultimatum: "do these in 48 hours or we'll go to war".
These demands are also unrealistic, but they are just pretext for new sanctions. It is very
unlikely that the US will take any military action against Russia. Russia responding to more
sanctions/economic warfare with attacking the West with nukes is also very unlikely.
It is also very unlikely that the people pulling the strings want WW3 with Russia. They just
found a convenient scapegoat and want to ramp up tensions with Russia not independently of
the game to bring down Trump for "colluding with Russia".
Face it, Russia is bound to lose an economic war, they cannot really retaliate without
hurting themselves. They could close the gas taps, but then they lose a lot of money. They
could close Russian airspace, but then they lose a lot of money too. They could deny Soyuz
seats to American astronauts, but the US has other options (not ready yet but they could get
them ready if really needed) etc. Russia is not a big economic player and never was one.
Regarding the sanctions the question is whether the EU will follow the US, probably yes, EU
companies are going to lose a lot of money, but they would lose much more if they are
punished by the US govt.
The US hawks think that they can bankrupt Russia like they did with the Soviet Union. The
question is how viable is Russian economy if mostly cut from the world economy including
finance and how tolerant will be the Russian people with the hardships. Looking at Iran, if
they could manage then Russia should be able to, but more hardships must be expected. Also
the government may do away with democratic pretensions and go full autocracy in the case of
popular unrest. And of course Russia will be dependent on China more than now. Why is it good
for the US if Russia becomes China's little bitch instead of a strategic ally against Chinese
expansion is another question. Rationally thinking China is the future geopolitical rival of
America and not Russia. But the people pulling the strings want to screw Russia bad, that is
their first goal, obviously, they feel ideologically fueled hatred for Russia beyond
strategic calculations.
Somehow a lot of comments here were deflected into a discussion of F-35 vs other fighters,
including Russian. I am not a technical expert, so I can comment only in general terms.
Overall, the technology in the US is more advanced. However, there is one huge difference
between Russian and American weapons: Russian ones are designed for the battlefield, whereas
American ones are design to maximize manufacturers' profits. To what extent does this
difference cancel technological potential in fighter planes, I don't know.
Why would Russia do that? The US is destroying itself more efficiently than any of its
enemies could ever achieve. Reminds me of a dark joke "if you see your enemy committing
suicide, do not interfere".
As a matter of fact, the USSR was not bankrupted. It was destroyed because the Party
elites wanted to steal a lot more than the Soviet system allowed. They succeeded, now they
are oligarchs, whereas the great majority of the population got screwed.
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls
For now yes, but if forced to, it could leave those structures and survive without them.
Of course it wouldn't be pretty especially the transitional period.
But so far the US has been applying relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that
Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not making a value judgement).
The idea that Russia would i.e. abandon the Crimea if sanctioned hard enough and such
"hopes" are delusional. A country that still sees itself as a great power and has a lot of
national pride is not going to make such concessions to the US. If Putin looks a wuss to the
Russian people he will fall more quickly than because of any sanctions. But I doubt that
there were even such hopes for real. The aim was always just to ratchet the hostility up with
Russia more and more, until a full blown cold war.
Russian officials reacted with outrage and markets slumped on Thursday morning following
the announcement of tough new US sanctions over Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent in
the Salisbury attack.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the sanctions were "absolutely
unlawful and don't conform to international law", as politicians vowed to respond with
countermeasures, which could include bans on the exports of rockets or resources for
manufacturing.
"The theatre of the absurd continues," tweeted Dmitry Polyanskiy, first
deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN. "No proofs, no clues, no logic, no
presumption of innocence, just highly-likelies. Only one rule: blame everything on Russia, no
matter how absurd and fake it is. Let us welcome the United Sanctions of America!"
One senior Russian MP called the US a "police state".
A member of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia could block exports of RD-180 rocket
engines to the US as a potential countermeasure, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
The State Department said the new sanctions would come into effect on 22 August and would be
followed by much more sweeping measures, such as suspending diplomatic relations and revoking
Aeroflot landing rights, if Russia did not take "remedial" action within 90 days.
Moscow is not expected to agree to the response required by US legislation, which includes
opening up Russian scientific and security facilities to international inspections to assess
whether it is producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law.
"Certainly it is really up to Russia to make that decision, whether they meet this
criteria," a senior administration official said. "The second round of sanctions are in general
more draconian than the first round."
Another senior state department official said the US received in March "persuasive
information" from the UK that Russia was behind the attack. It made its own determination last
weekend and was now acting on the basis of "objective facts" and "legal requirements".
Russian markets took the news poorly. Stocks in Aeroflot, the country's national carrier,
fell by 12% in trading before lunchtime on Thursday over concerns that its direct flights
between Russia and the US could be halted entirely.
Russia's currency, the rouble, fell to below 66 to the US dollar, a 4% slide from Wednesday
morning that began with the leak of a separate draft sanctions bill that could see Russia named
a state sponsor of terror.
The US has already expelled 60 suspected Russian spies as part of a global response to the
March attack in Salisbury against
Sergei Skripal , a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, and his daughter,
Yulia , in which a rare and potent Russian-made nerve agent, novichok, was found to have
been used.
"... Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. ..."
"... Traders are particularly concerned by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank, Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed. ..."
"... The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of
legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the
nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions
of the nation's biggest lenders.
"The Kommersant publication was the straw that broke the camel's back,"
said Denis Davydov, an analyst at Nordea Bank in Moscow. "It's important to be able to read and assess the actual
bill."
Market Jitters
No action will be taken on the draft until the House is back from summer recess in September, leaving room for
more market jitters through the end of the month. But with President Donald Trump calling for closer ties with
Russia, and the U.S. Treasury warning earlier this year against sanctioning the sovereign debt market, it's
uncertain the bill will make it into law.
Traders are
particularly concerned
by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests
in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank,
Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed.
The draft also includes Bank of Moscow, which was merged into VTB in 2016, while Vnesheconombank is listed
twice in the text, without explanation.
'Crushing Russia'
"If you start crushing Russia by causing the banking system to collapse as a result of sanctions, it could
actually lead to worse political outcomes than what you have right now," Khan said. "The key rule of sanctions is
that you want to keep some in reserve because if you use your worst sanctions then what do you follow it up with?"
The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It
follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and
intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers from both parties have also been sharply critical of President Donald Trump's meeting with Putin in
Helsinki last month, saying Trump hasn't done enough to hold Russia accountable.
This is attack on ruble. Kind of Magnitsky II set of moves. Strange if view of Trump supposed
attempt to split Russia and China in Helsinki. You should chose a single target in such
cases.
Sanctions weaken the effect of Iranian sanctions. While the goal is to undermine the Russian
economy -- the effect of negative expectations is always stronger than a onetime action -- 90
days allow to avoid big financial losses for major banks. The requirement of inspection of Russia
objects is from Iraq war textbook.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar. ..."
"... This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016. ..."
"... For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , ..."
"... This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. ..."
sanctions was
apparently enough to create jitters on the Russian stock exchanges, and the Russian
Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to
the dollar.
This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the
worst valuation since mid-November, 2016.
This incident has not gone unanswered in Moscow. The Russian Embassy in the United States
called for documentation about the source and reasoning behind these new sanctions, as reported by TASS:
The Russian embassy in the United States has called on the US Department of State to
publish correspondence on the introduction of new sanctions on Moscow over the Skripal
incident, the embassy said in a statement.
" For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK,
which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We
confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of
the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , " the
statement reads.
"We suggested publishing our correspondence on this issue. No answer has followed so
far," the Russian embassy added.
This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity
for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing
intensity since 2013. It reveals the machinations of a very divided American government,
with the "deep State" or establishment politicians and foreign policy makers completely
unwilling to even give Russia a fair shake at representing itself. This policy is shared by the
United Kingdom, as this
piece by The Duran's Editor in Chief, Alexander Mercouris shows, with this summary of
violations of due process the British authorities are committing with regard to Russia:
(1) The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with
Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at
who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway;
(2) The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a
specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty. As I have explained
previously this
reverses the burden of proof : in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed
to prove the defendant's guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence;
(3) The British government refuses to share with Russia -- the party it says is guilty --
the 'evidence' upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in
this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was
poisoned.
This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the
evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence;
(4) The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the
Chemical Weapons
Convention to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows
States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and
resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter
which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to
concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which
receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the
requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting
State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request,
with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation
of how the information provided resolves the matter.
(5) The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal,
though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal
assault on their territory.
This is a potentially serious matter since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal
the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which
exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from
learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised
following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from
carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the
British authorities say has taken place.
I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone
almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media.
The Americans are playing the same game here, and, regrettably, President Trump's overtures
towards repairing this relationship are almost sure to be torn out from under him by the
actions of this virulent group of people. It is quite possible that this is the very reason for
these new sanctions.
The perspective of the American government as one divided, with a rabid force in favor of
continuing to isolate and vilify a great power in the world for no good reason, is sure to have
repercussions. However, given the gradual realignment of Russia and China to be in closer and
closer partnership, and Russia's increasing prominence in Asian and Eastern Hemisphere affairs,
the end result of this behavior is likely to damage the United States and its standing in the
world over the long run.
6. Focused on violence through brownshirt stormtroopers who beat up any who disagreed
7. Had an intelligence service which focused on crushing dissent and spying on its own
people
8. Placed more power in the central government and state then any Nation before it.
All of the above are things proposed or carried out by leftists. It is almost as if the true
parties espoused by people are those who support individualism and those who support
collectivism. Spoiler alert for the Leftist retards: Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Your Statist Sanders Utopia will never come to fruition. The "Kind Socialist
Politicians" will sell you out to the elite in a heartbeat.
All you are doing is focusing the
power of your society into one single glass for the Elite to sip as they assfuck you into
oblivion, Death toll of all of these Statist Nations, IE Imperial Japan, Soviet Union,
Communist China, the People's "Republic" of Korea, etc is over 200,000,000 and counting.
How is it that the acronym NAZI Literally has the word SOCIALIST in it and people still
think they were right wing??? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the average
individual?
Aug. 9 - Is Pompeo launching a coup against his boss? By kicking in sanctions on Russia -
invoking a 1991 US law on chemical weapons - the US State Department is further poisoning
President Trump's efforts to improve relations with his Russian counterpart. If President Trump
refuses to enforce the sanctions, he will hand a political gift to Democrats who believe their
election fortunes in November rest on endlessly screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia." And what
are these new sanctions all about? The totally unproven, full-of-holes claims that the Russian
government was behind the Skripal "poisoning" in the UK in March. We untangle some of this
madness in today's Liberty Report:
"... "When will you finally stop beating your wife?" ..."
"... "Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even show," ..."
"... "The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US –we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," ..."
"... "Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison him,'" ..."
"... "And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," ..."
"... "This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," ..."
"... "looking strong on Russia" ..."
"... "The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a campaign move," ..."
"... "As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now." ..."
"... "It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else. Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide this," ..."
Washington's latest sanctions have left no room for a constructive response from Moscow,
analysts explain, but opinions differ widely on how much the measures will affect relations
between the two countries. All interviewed by RT railed against the framing of the sanctions,
nominally prompted by the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Skripals in the UK back
in March. Russia will be punished with a first set of measures from August 22, and is given 90
days to assure Washington that it will no longer deploy chemical weapons, and to open up its
chemical production facilities to international inspectors.
One problem: Russia denies that it has used chemical weapons in the first place and says
that it had already disposed of its stockpile in accordance with international treaties. So, to
use the proverbial example, the US is asking Russia: "When will you finally stop beating
your wife?"
"Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us
your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even
show," Vladimir Kornilov, a political analyst for RIA news agency, told RT.
"The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US
–we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and
unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," said Andrey Kortunov, Director
General of the Russian International Affairs Council.
Leonid Polyakov, from the Higher School of Economics, says that Washington must be aware
that the Kremlin would never agree to its conditions, so setting them in the first place is a
cheap pretense at diplomacy.
"Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never
move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for
example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison
him,'" he told RT.
"And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any
previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," Polyakov pointed out,
citing the recent offer by the Russian president to allow the questioning of its citizens
involved in alleged election-meddling, but only in exchange for William Browder and others
being interviewed by Moscow's investigators.
US 'showing who's boss' or playing to home
audience?
All three experts agreed that not only will the sanctions be rejected, but they are unlikely
to have any indirect effect on Russia's international policies, or its economic outlook.
Kortunov says this is an attempt to claw back international prestige, particularly in the
wake of the US failure to impose its will in Syria, fraying relations with Europe and China,
and Donald Trump's perceived softness in negotiating with Putin in Helsinki last month.
"This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is
boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the
commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the
whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," Kortunov said.
For Polyakov, this is all about "looking strong on Russia" ahead of October's
mid-term elections.
"The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international
consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic
audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a
campaign move," he said to RT.
The professor of political science adds that a lack of ideas over how to corral a feisty
Russia is pushing American officials to press the sanctions button again and again.
"As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international
situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that
sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely
used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now."
Yet Kornilov believes that sanctions are not just a shield for a beleaguered establishment,
but an offensive weapon.
"It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else.
Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide
this," he said.
Can things get worse?
Since hostility between Moscow and Washington is at a post-war high as it is, Polyakov
believes it will be impractical for the two nuclear powers to escalate tensions still further,
beyond the headlines.
"... "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers – from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," ..."
"... "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" ..."
"... "an absence of evidence." ..."
"... "a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being." ..."
"... "any property, or interest in property" ..."
"... "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." ..."
The "addiction" of Washington to sanctions "knows no bounds," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said. It comes after Washington
slapped two top officials from major ally Turkey with restrictions. "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers
– from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft,
but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," Zarif tweeted.
US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers - from an allied country - illustrates not just US administration's policy
of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds.
In a heightening of tensions between the two allies, the US Treasury Department on Wednesday
announced restrictions against Turkish Minister
of Justice Abdulhamit Gul and Minister of Interior Suleyman Soylu over the continued detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.
Brunson is being held by Turkey on charges of espionage and assisting the plotters of an unsuccessful 2016 military coup attempt.
The US says Brunson is "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" by the Turkish government, adding that he was accused
with "an absence of evidence." US President Donald Trump has
called the pastor "a great Christian,
family man and wonderful human being."
The Treasury Department announced that "any property, or interest in property" of both Gul and Soylu within US jurisdiction
is blocked and "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them."
Brunson's case has long been a stumbling block in already strained relations between Washington and Ankara. Days before the US
Treasury announced its decision, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
accused
his American counterpart of waging "psychological warfare" against Turkey over the pastor and warned that the US may lose
"a strong and sincere ally."
Responding to the restrictions, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
tweeted that they "won't be left
without retaliation."
US relations with Turkey have not been smooth in recent months. Among other things, Ankara and Washington are locking horns over
Turkey's decision to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Erdogan's government is also adamant on pushing ahead with the purchase of
American F-35 jets, which US lawmakers are trying to block due to Ankara's S-400 deal.
"... The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present), have never known a real relaxation of tension. ..."
"... a warning against the oppressors of the people ..."
"... the outcasts have become creators of public norms ..."
"... 5Stars – League ..."
"... rhetoric of the clash between civilizations ..."
"... Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason, according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused. ..."
"... velayat-e faqih ..."
"... the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through the definition of a government able to run the law. ..."
"... The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist model of civilization. ..."
"... Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance ..."
The intelligence is coming in, Russia appearing to be pushed to the side, making many wonder
what Netanyahu has on Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Iran should well be a "redline" for
Russia but, increasingly, analysts are coming to believe that Trump and Putin at their
conference in Helsinki may well have "sold Iran down the river."
The next target, of course is Turkey.
When Iran is gone, Turkey will go as well, with America having a long standing relationship
with the Kurds and holding the what Trump's sees has his key to Turkey, Gulan, the radical
cleric living in Pennsylvania, groomed by the CIA to become Washington's puppet in Ankara when
Erdogan can finally be eliminated.
Behind this is an economic war. Israel is crushing the Palestinians, aided by Trump rag-tail
relation and probably Mueller investigation target, Jared Kushner. Few are aware of the real
"geologicals" from the Eastern Mediterranean, with massive gas deposits under Idlib and Latakia
in Syria and adjacent Turkey and both off and onshore in Gaza. The Gaza reserves alone may well
constitute the second largest untapped gas reserve in the world.
The the first under both Iran and Qatar, moves to put both nations "out of business," will
benefit Israel, Russia and the US and push pipeline gas and LNG to new record highs.
It is always about the money and US sanctions on Iran and Russia are intended, of course, to
bring the "hot war" on Iran to fruition as soon as possible.
Now for an Italian source on
the issue translated by Pravda's Constantino Ceoldo
by Daniele Perra
The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal
Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a
potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the
Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution
in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the
nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully
respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present),
have never known a real relaxation of tension.
The 1979 hostage crisis, as a result of which Pope John Paul II sent a request for release
that Imam Khomeini rejected by arguing his answer with the fact that the Iranian people would
have expected from the messenger of Christ a warning against the oppressors of the
people and not solidarity with them, and the terrifying war of aggression that Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, on US and Saudi commission, moved against the newborn Islamic Republic were
only the first episodes of a long series of more or less direct confrontation between a nation
with ancient history and culture and that paradise of Protestant eschatological heterodoxy in
which, as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin affirmed, the outcasts have become
creators of public norms .
Add to this the fact that between the imposition of sanctions regimes on several levels and
in different periods and direct interference in Iranian internal affairs (heavy exploitation of
the protests of the so-called Green Movement and support to various terrorist groups that aim
to destabilize the country: first among all the Mojahedin-e Khalq with offices in France and
Albania), the US has never stopped aspiring and dreaming of that "regime change" that now, with
the appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State but above all of John R. Bolton as a
national security advisor, seems to have come back very closely.
Also, and above all, because the fears for the Iranian presence in Syria, considered as an
existential threat to Israel, has triggered various hysterical reactions between the North
American Zionist lobby and the Israeli military and political leaders themselves. See
in this regard the bombastic as unreliable presentation of "irrefutable evidence" on the
Iranian violations of the JCPOA by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the twelve
requests, drawn up by Mike Pompeo, that Iran should meet if it intends to renegotiate the
agreement with the USA. Requests among which there appears to be at least a ridiculous
cessation of aid to al-Qaeda and to the Afghan Taliban that Iran have always been sworn enemies
and which, on the contrary, have often enjoyed the support of the US and Zionist
intelligence . The Taliban, among other things, have carried out real massacres of the
Hazara : the ethnic Shiite component of Afghanistan.
For what concerns Italy (Iran's first European commercial partner), the new sanctions
imposed by the USA following the unilateral exit from the JCPOA would damage the economy much
more than those, however useless, inflicted on Russia and the whose removal has been included
(even if at the time it is taken into the background) in the program of the new yellow-green
government [ 5Stars – League ].
The low negotiating power of European economic actors, faced with the forced choice between
access (with the risk of sanctions) to the Iranian market or to the "imposed" US market, and
the cultural subalternity that many governments continue to suffer towards the US, despite of
the desire to preserve the JCPOA, do not foresee anything that does not go beyond the usual
forms of masochistic schizophrenia of Europe.
Now, from a purely geopolitical point of view, the North American obsession with Iran is
more than justified. The Islamic Revolution has overthrown a regime that in previous decades,
except for the small parenthesis of the nationalist government of Mossadeq (not coincidentally
overturned by a joint Anglo-American operation), had made of its total alignment to the United
States its only form of international legitimacy and which, with Turkey, represented one of the
"pillars" of North American geopolitics in the Middle East. And the Revolution has also
prevented the North American elites from directly managing huge energy resources.
Iran, to date, is the third country in the world in terms of oil resources and the first in
terms of natural gas reserves. It is therefore clear how the Trump administration, by launching
the Energy Dominance doctrine aimed at achieving dominance on the global energy market, can not
help but perceive Iran as a fearsome potential competitor and at the same time as a "prey" for
the effective expansion and implementation of the aforementioned plan.
Nor should we forget the fact that Iran, as a pillar of the new multipolar order and a
hegemonic power in the Middle East, represents a sort of black hole that threatens the US
control of that Eurasian rimland that the geopolitical scholar Nicholas J. Spykman
laid the foundation of the North American hegemonic system. However, there are other factors
that, although preliminary to the North American hegemonic design, remain more related to the
rhetoric of the clash between civilizations and the perception of an Islam that can
not be used for its geopolitical purposes as an enemy to be fought and annihilated
whenever possible. And even in this sense, the North American obsession with Iran appears more
than justified.
Today's Iran, albeit with obvious defects (though not alien to any nation in the world),
represents the antithesis par excellence of a model of civilization set on the magnificent and
progressive fate of modernity. The Khomeinist Revolution developed as a reappropriation of the
dimension of the sacred, as a restoration of that direct thread between the physical and
metaphysical order that the Western modernity imposed by the Shah regime had almost
irretrievably split. The Revolution, understood in the etymologically correct sense of the term
re-evolution , has shown how the phenomenon of modernity has no connection with
contemporaneity. Modernity is only a model of society, of civilization, of the vision of the
world which through a process of reversion of time and of reappropriation of one's traditional
"being in the world" can be overturned.
Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the
reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures
incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the
step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources
and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason,
according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam
of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused.
But this law must refer to authentic Islam and not to its version counterfeited by Western
colonialism. The Imam, for example, never stopped defining Wahhabism as American Islam
. The doctrine of the velayat-e faqih (vicariate of the jurisconsult) as the
foundation of the current Iranian political system, by the admission of Khomeini himself, is
not the product of his theoretical elaboration. This is not something new, but is at the center
of the question of Islamic government from the beginning. Khomeini limited himself only to a
more in-depth analysis, identifying its roots in the Islamic tradition.
The vicariate of the jurisconsult is the order to fulfill a delivery. The assumption of the
obligations of government and of the burden of command by the doctors of the law implies the
realization of a precise purpose: to confirm the truth and to eliminate the lie. According to a
well known prophetic hadith the doctors of the law are the custodians of the trust of
the prophets. And as the Imam reiterates in his speech on the Islamic government:
the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the
framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through
the definition of a government able to run the law.
A concept present on several occasions even in his most strictly focused works on
irfan (gnosis) in which to the divine Nuncio and fixed archetype of the Perfect Man is
given the task of preserving the limits established by God and preventing them from coming out
of the confines of moderation. A call, that to measure, present in a relevant way also in
Western culture, both in ancient Greece and in the Middle Ages. It is said, for example, that
Frederick II Hohenstaufen, questioned by the legendary Priest Gianni (figuration of the
Guenonian "King of the World") about what was the best thing in the world, replied: "the best
thing in this world is measure".
It is therefore obvious that as a philosophical-metaphysical logos set entirely on
the sense of measure and on the virtue of moderation it can not necessarily clash against a
vision of the world based on excess (on that "gigantism" so stigmatized by Martin Heidegger)
and on the negation of all that is human. Man realizes himself through thought. Being human
means first of all to think and investigate around the sense of truth. And if the instrument of
the intellect is not exercised and developed, man is transformed into a machine and is
sacrificed on the altar of technique. The fact that Western thought has produced such an
artificial act by determining its own suicide does not mean that every other civilization /
culture must do the same in the name of unipolar globalization.
The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of
resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist
model of civilization. And the same idea is also valid for what concerns Zionism that has
imported this model in the Near East, openly confronting the Islamic world. In this regard, the
Imam was particularly critical in the first place with the rabbis: "they – said Khomeini
– despite being the guardians of Jewish religious law have done nothing to prevent the
oppressors to pronounce their sinful words, spread lies, slander and distort the truth".
Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale
Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a
proponent of encouraging diplomacy with Russia amid tense relations, in Moscow on Aug. 6, the
senator's office said on Thursday.
"Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of diplomacy and is supporting President Donald J.
Trump in engaging around the world. He looks forward to his meetings," Paul's office said in a
statement on Thursday. No further information was available about the trip, including who else
might be in the delegation.
####
Bill intends to sanction Russian 'oligarchs,' restrict energy projects
The Russian Ruble dropped Thursday to a near-term low after bipartisan US senators
announced what they are calling a "bill from hell" round of new sanctions and restrictions
targeting the Russian economy and leadership.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the leading proponents of the bill, said the massive
present US sanctions against Russia have failed, saying that all of these new sanctions are
needed to "punish" Russia.
As currently envisioned, the sanctions target a number of top Russian politicians and
"oligarchs." The bill also aims to severely restrict Russia's ability to raise sovereign debt,
and to restrict their ability to seek investment in energy projects.
There is no timeline for a vote on the bill yet, but reportedly some senators are also
lining up to offer amendments adding yet more sanctions or other measures against Russia. This
could go on for quite awhile, with almost the whole Senate looking to one-up each other on
being anti-Russia these days, and could mean an actual vote won't happen.
####
It looks to me that with the mid-terms coming up and showing diplomacy with Russia not
taking a hit with Republican voters, this further push by Rand Paul looks to make the Dems look
and sound even more extreme, maybe drawing disgusted voters to the Republican camp..
This is just America pretending to itself that it controls the global economy and that it can
strangle any country economically at a time of its choosing – I am frankly surprised to
see them continually trying harder when their efforts to date have had such negligible
success. I suppose the Senate needs something to do to make itself look busy and necessary.
But all this will achieve is further cementing of America as an enemy of Russia in the eyes
of ordinary Russians – should a future US government decide that was a mistake, and
soft power is the way to go, it will not be able to make any progress for around 50 years,
and a great deal of hard work and careful relationship-building has been thrown away.
American businesses must be finding it increasingly difficult to continue operations in
Russia, and Asian companies must be acing them out for market
share . Altogether a continuing exercise in stupidity and willful blindness – if
America wants to destroy Russia, it is eventually going to have to take it on in a head-on
military confrontation. Because its efforts to destroy it economically are failing and will
continue to fail. Not to mention that they are building sympathy around the world –
outside North America – for Russia. America has to understand that while it is enjoying
playing "I'm crushing Russia", it has consequences and it will not be able to make things up
for a generation.
I'm not quite sure what Paul thinks he might achieve with this, but he certainly is not
going to make any friends in Russia, and he certainly is not going to have any leverage to
make changes in American policy so long as the Russophobic majority has the bit in its teeth.
He's basically just wasting the taxpayers' money on a junket to Moscow. Alternatively, he
might be going to measure Russian desperation, to see if there is any possibility the country
can be brought to its knees without having to fight it.
In the latest effort to punish Moscow over alleged election meddling, as well its role in both Ukraine
and Syria, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate Thursday that
seeks to be so
far reaching that it's being widely described as "crushing".
Predictably, it has as
sponsors such Congressional hawks as Senators Bob Menendez, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham
--
the
latter which announced the bill's goal is to "
impose crushing sanctions and other measures
against Putin's Russia
until he ceases and desists meddling in the U.S. electoral process,
halts cyber-attacks on US infrastructure, removes Russia from Ukraine, and ceases efforts to create
chaos in Syria," according a
statement
.
Via Google News
According to lawmakers' statements,
the
Graham-Menendez bill introduces harsh new restrictions on sectors ranging from energy and oil projects
to uranium imports and on sovereign debt transactions.
And the new sanctions further target
various Russian political figures and oligarchs.
Bob Menendez (D) of New Jersey
called the measure
the
"next step in tightening the screws on the Kremlin"
so
Putin understands
"that the U.S. will not tolerate his behavior any longer."
Other supporters include Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
among those previously mentioned.
In a statement Sen. John McCain said, "Until Putin pays a serious price for his actions, these
attacks on our democracy will only grow.
This bill would build on
the strongest sanctions
ever imposed on the Putin regime
for its assault on democratic institutions, violation
of international treaties, and siege on open societies through cyberattacks and misinformation
campaigns."
Notably, part of the legislation would
require the State Department to make an assessment
on
whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism
.
It might have trouble passing, however, as even though
a broad spectrum of legislators have
lately criticized President Trump for meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last month
and have charged Russia with seeking to interfere in US elections, there's concern that it could
inadvertently impact markets beyond Russia's borders. It would further have to pass the House of
Representatives before going to Trump's desk.
The Banking and Foreign Relations Committees are planning hearings in advance of legislation
coming to the floor. Some senators have expressed concern new sanctions might go too far or not
succeed in getting Putin to change course.
The Treasury Department has warned Congress against legislation that would block
transactions and financing for Russian sovereign debt in part
because of the pain
it would wreak across markets outside Russia's borders
.
The bill is considered the broadest and most far reaching of any Russia sanctions bill previously
considered. Sen. Graham had recently described that it would include everything but "the kitchen
sink."
Meanwhile
the ruble and Russian local bonds were shaken moments after the bipartisan
legislation was announced Thursday
:
the ruble traded down by as much as 0.9 percent
against the dollar, and bond yields jumped to the highest level since July last year.
"... "The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry. ..."
"... "The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S. ..."
"... The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. ..."
Whether this is a coordinated response is unclear - and certainly on a much smaller scale -
but Bloomberg reports that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree this morning
imposing higher tariffs on U.S. products in retaliation for U.S. duties on metals imports,
according to Economy Ministry statement.
Reuters reports that Russia's additional duties will apply to imports of fiber optics,
equipment for road construction, oil and gas industry, metal processing and mining, according
to an economy ministry statement.
Russia will impose duties on goods which have Russian-made substitutes, Economy Minister
Maxim Oreshkin is quoted as saying in the statement.
"The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of
import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on
some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures
cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines,
rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the
ministry.
"The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions
amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have
to pay in the U.S.
The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage
amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the
WTO rules," he said. Russia will be able to compensate for the remaining part in three
years since the introduction of the U.S. duties or after approval of the WTO dispute settlement
body if it finds the U.S. restrictions violating the organization's rules, the ministry
said.
Makes you wonder how long Russia will stay with WTO - just like Trump - if this is all the
response "you're allowed."
I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1
is making the right points from it.
The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration
is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically
made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from
its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia:
The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel
I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale.
He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers
with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability.
It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect
most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.
No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long
been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete
within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far
from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out,
many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.
Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world
oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its
construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the
pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark
can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.
Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what
happens.
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back
on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra
cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work
together against US attacks.
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are
limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in
November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on
arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long
before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons
or Knight Templars.
Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of
decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and
pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that
control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited,
and their power is finite.
"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or
Knight Templars."
They were.
Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary
to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.
First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU
foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big
business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does
not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless
the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing
with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a
US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus
Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise
considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany –
only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite
which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The
undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests
of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU
organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those
fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible
force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are
completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force
multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance,
reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force
planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally
dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU
states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the
Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European
(I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO
Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who
is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red,
white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European
armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the
EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO
desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia
improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will
let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more
US troops on their soil, not less and they are all
pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military
exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases,
NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .
Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships
with Russia . They include:
Unpopular governments which need to explain their own
failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the
Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their
"Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a
"Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly
back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states
did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name
of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are
simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
EU prostitutes : states whose
only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the
most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and
willing loyal servant of the US". 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 ). True, now that EU
subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they
know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to
change their tune anytime soon (even if
Bulgaria has
already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
Governments who want
to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political
party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best
example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are,
in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize
(correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all
the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).
Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a
powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany
(and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an
aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes,
money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the
big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these
sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but
it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is
why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the
sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.
Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days
when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it
was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very
demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So
when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all
quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian
agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the
Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more
sanctions on Russia .
The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at
all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is
the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6
reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia
needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on
occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally
joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other,
but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all
mobsters prey upon.
The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high
probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia
(DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis
will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:
Option one: they lose to the combined forces of the DNR and LNR. This is probably the most
likely outcome. Should this happen, there is a very high probability of a Novorussian counter
attack to liberate most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, especially the cities of
Slaviansk and Mariupol. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can
be pretty darn sure of what the reaction in Kiev and in the West will be: Russia will be
blamed for it all. The AngloZionists will never admit that the Ukronazi regime lost a civil
war to its own people because the Novorussians will never accept a Nazi regime ruling over
them. Thus, a Novorussian victory will result in more hysterical Russophobia.
Option two: the Ukronazis succeed in their attack and threaten to overrun Donetsk, Lugansk and the rest of
Novorussia. Putin simply cannot allow this to happen. He has made that promise many times and
he has recently repeated it during his "open line" with the Russian people. If the Russians
are forced to intervene, this will not be a massive ground invasion – there is no need
for that. Russia has the firepower needed in the form of missile and artillery strikes to
destroy the attacking Urkonazi forces and to impose a no-fly zone over all of Novorussia. If
Kiev pushes on and launches a full-scale attack on Russia proper, the Ukrainian armed forces
will be totally disorganized and cease combat in about 48 hours. This scenario is what I call
the "Neocon dream" since such a Russian intervention will not be imaginary, but quite real
and the Kremlin will even confirm it all very publicly and probably recognize the two
Novorussian Republics just like what happened in 08.08.08 when Saakashvili decided to invade
South Ossetia. So, AngloZionists will (finally!) have the "proof" that Russia is the
aggressor, the Poles and Balts will prepare for an "imminent" Russian invasion and I think
that there is a pretty good chance that NATO forces will move into the Western Ukraine to
"stop the Russians", even if the said Russians will have absolutely no desire (or even
possible motive) to want to invade the rest of the Ukraine or, even less so, Poland, Sweden
or the Baltic statelets.
I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not
happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie
military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about "
grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will
happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev
will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you
find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame
Russia.
The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty
clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of
Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good
terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly
by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad
terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower.
Furthermore, Russia is now reporting
that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you
guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And
why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least,
it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even
if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or
in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to
become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be
blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be
attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from
over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least
US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion
is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither
of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And
if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all
quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).
The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for
Russia and the future does look rather bleak.
One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg
summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really
centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert
Doctorow on this topic
here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about
the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while
Russia and China are
having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire
with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic
block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all
(especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the
hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).
Conclusion :
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on
the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different
interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang
racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face
to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about
your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best
when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their
problems at our expense ".
However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will,
engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and
Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also
non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being
deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types
and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is
the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her
resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any
action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU
Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to
undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when
he
recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no
Russia ".
Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous
to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a
multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are
totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage
those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called "
the Europe of
fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound
crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one,
European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe
succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if
only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous
economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous
Europe " from the Atlantic to the
Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union
and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced
by sovereignists.
The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and
the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly,
treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This
is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe,
the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long
struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.
The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense".
As for this:
If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually
disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it
is really that simple.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that
would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project
would threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern
Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia
could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told
reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in
the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop
it, according to the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr
20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump
administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that
Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been
commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of
Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars
that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons.
Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did
not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even
develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that
Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.
Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically
integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian
heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash?
Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.
Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that
Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat
your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately,
already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should
have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent
influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot
be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if
not.
The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or
all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.
Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak.
Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not
verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million
martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means
about everything that has happened since.
You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher
source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world
invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and
removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't
understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us
outside of the Judeo-Overton window.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense
With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe
past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such
things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945.
As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.
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.
"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest
Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over
the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."
Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by
Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us
(proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the
Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of
holocaust biz.
What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?"
How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier
Division of the SS (1st Galician)?
"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater
Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in
Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite
occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will
continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign
and united State and a new order in the whole world.
Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the
Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act
We are talking apples and oranges. 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.
As I pointed out in my last comment on the previous Korea thread, only the UNSC sanctions
are legal--Outlaw US Empire sanctions have no legal force outside its borders and can be freely
ignored. It's entirely possible Russia will use its position as UNSC President this month to
introduce a resolution canceling or greatly scaling back UNSC sanctions.
That almost the entire Imperial Establishment has given the Finger to the entire affair
isn't being ignored by the rest of the world, the EU in particular.
Although short, the Global Times link I provided has useful information as does the
Black Agenda Report item I linked to in my comment previous to my last on that
thread.
I very much approve of b's linking what was just accomplished with the NPT and hope other
writers pick it up and help further broadcast his very important point.
As for 100% denuclearization of Korea, lots of nuclear power plants will need to be replaced
and decommissioned, and that will likely take several decades to attain.
One can hope that an historical movement's begun to finally decolonize those nations
occupied by the Outlaw US Empire upon WW2's end. Admittedly, the Asian nations will find such a
process much easier than those in Europe. I doubt I'll live to see it, but somehow I can't find
any reason for Germany to continue being occupied in 2045, a full century after the end of WW2.
But if Germany is to become free, it cannot afford any more Merkels.
It would be legitimate to wonder if the U.S. MIC will stealthily add to the long list of sanctimonious sanctions the interdiction
for any western vassal state to buy the vastly superior Russian weapon systems in a not so distant future. One can feel it coming.
Needless to say this kind of short sighted vision will be the straw that will break the camel's back.
These sanctions are ultimately going to hurt more the USA than Russia because little by little countries are leaving the American
sphere of influence for the more balanced and reasonable Eurasian one. Nobody wants to stay with a maniac like Nikki or a fool
like trump...
The Americans will be begging to be integrated once they hit the bottom.
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
hostilities.
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
the knees.
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
forms.
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then
yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence
of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly
evident within its citizenry.
That's obviously
not
the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.
The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the
complete and total subjugation of humanity.
Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that
rules the West.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
fiasco in
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the
Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by
committing a GENOCIDE.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Salisbury.
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Forgot to say that theses sanctions are downright embarrassing.
So we illegally attack a different country, that country's ally doesn't respond to our act of aggression, and we're now slapping
sanctions on that country... for not responding to our attack? Not only sanctions but sanctions on products that both parties
actually know aren't there. Unless the US is sanctioning the supply chain of swimming pool and industrial/domestic cleaning agents
based on chlorine.
Brilliant just the way to get an agreement from them next time.
Trump had 1 BILLION $ in debt to the chosen banks ; maybe this can point toward whether or not he was part of the deep state
from the beginning ? But ,does it matter any longer ?
Sanctions... act of war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country (without UN approval even)... act of war. Insulting foreign
leaders and creating false flags to justify your illegal actions... act of war. Don't be fooled into thinking that just b/c Russia
did not respond to the US actions, that "nothing happened". War has started, this is just the beginning.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly -- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a fait accompli, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation mockingbird-controlled, corporate
(MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN) right
now?
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government
elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe,
including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the
Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert
Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their
government's destabilizing activities.
The US lost proper timing for the coup -- it was possible in 2011-2012 timeframe. Now hardly. And if one think that
Russian oligarchs will sitting quietly while the West expropriate their money, think again. China banks do exist, if I am not
mistaken. And some other nations also have pretty developed financial sector.
I do not think that Russia should or can cut ties with the USA. Dependence of the US technological sector is substantial and
cutting the ties might backfire. This is the calculation of the UIS lawmakers, who enjoyed the impunity of the unipolar
moment. But bumerang always retrun. sooner or later.
Notable quotes:
"... The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia ..."
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with
protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia
The latest round of sanctions the US Treasury has imposed on Russia are a strange affair.
Earlier rounds of sanctions have been linked to specific acts of real or alleged Russian misbehaviour e.g. the death of
Sergey Magnitsky, the Crimean crisis, the war in the Donbass, the shooting down of MH17, and the alleged Russian meddling in
the 2016 US Presidential election.
This latest round of sanctions is different in that it is not directly linked to any Russian action – real or alleged – at
all. Nor are the people sanctioned – for example the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska – directly accused of anything.
In place of any specific accusation against Russia or any of the individuals concerned, here is how a
statemen
t from US Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin justifies the latest sanctions
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian
government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate
violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians,
attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing
activities.
(bold italics added)
In other words Russia is a bad corrupt country which does lots of bad things around the world of which the US disapproves.
Anyone in Russia who is rich ("an oligarch") and is therefore "profiting from this corrupt system" is in some way
responsible and risks being sanctioned
irrespective of anything they do
unless this changes.
The implication is that if they do not want to be sanctioned the "oligarchs" must overthrow Russia's government.
The latest sanctions are therefore an incitement to a coup.
All
other steps the US has taken having failed
, Russia's businessmen ("oligarchs") are now being told that unless they
engineer the overthrow of Russia's government they will be sanctioned.
The first thing to say about this policy is that it is decades out of date.
There was a time in the 1990s when a small group of stratospherically wealthy and corrupt individuals really did control
Russia's government.
By way of example, most of the people who met in the Kremlin during the 1998 financial crisis to decide whether or not to
devalue the ruble were not members of the government or even officials, and the meeting during which the decision was
finally taken to devalue the ruble was chaired not by a government minister but by the former Acting Prime Minister of
Russia Yegor Gaidar, who at the time was neither a member of the government nor an official, but who was merely an adviser of
Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, who was at the time away reviewing the fleet.
The decision was in fact made by the same small group of wealthy and corrupt individuals who at that time really did
control Russia's government, meeting informally under Gaidar's chairmanship, and not through the official structures.
It is not a misconception to call these individuals "oligarchs". In the 1990s that is exactly what they were. The most
politically powerful amongst them – Boris Berezovsky – was not even properly speaking a businessman.
That is not the situation in Russia today. A person like Oleg Deripaska – the aluminium magnate whose name appears on the
latest sanctions list – may be a person of great influence and power. However he does not control Russia's government, and
has no means to do so.
I should say that I first came across the suggestion that the "oligarchs" could be mobilised to overthrow President Putin
or force him to reverse his policies by imposing sanctions upon them in early 2014 at the start of the Ukrainian crisis.
As I recall reports appeared in the media that the German intelligence agency the BND was advising Chancellor Merkel that
if the EU imposed sanctions on Russia the "oligarchs" would either force President Putin to change course or would overthrow
him in order to save their fortunes.
Many rounds of sanctions later one might suppose that that theory had been tested to destruction. However Steven
Mnuchin's statement suggests that faith in it dies hard.
The latest round of sanctions the US has imposed on Russian businessmen and their companies will not weaken President
Putin's position or that of the Russian government, and will not affect Russia's economy.
As China's semi-official English language newspaper
Global Times
has recently pointed out, Russia – unlike countries like Iran – has a big largely self-sufficient
continental sized economy possessing immense scientific, technological and natural resources, making it therefore largely
immune to sanctions.
As for the wealthy Russian individuals who the latest sanctions are targeting, the reason so many of them keep money
abroad is not because they control Russia's government, but because they do not control it, and do not wholly trust it.
The result is that they have been squirreling away much of their money abroad, beyond their government's reach.
Now what they are discovering is that their money is at far greater risk of being seized by the US government than by
their own – something the Russian government has been telling them for years – so that it is in fact safer kept at home than
it is squirreled away abroad.
Do not think Russia is in the mood to be Diplomatic or generous. Though, they will always be polite and show their manners and
respect for International Law, up on the world stage. Do believe the UK and US have seriously crossed the red line. Short term
pain for long term gain, so comes to mind.
With Theresa May and Donald Trump as leaders it is no wonder the world is in such a mess. Putin is the only adult left to lead
on the world stage. We will do better listening to Putin. The history of the warmongers (UK and USA ) should never be ignored...
Must, admit, I find it so reassuring the way that President Putin and President Xi-Jinping,
work together. Plus, President Duterte, he might be tactless, but, unlike Trump, he
comes across trustworthy and with a love of his nation and people. Not forgetting
President Assad, all Syria has been through, yet, he will not leave his people and
neither will his family. It is nice to see a different form of politician, that is
managing to come through and help another learn from their values.
Together, with
the fact that President Putin, would not be where he is, without a very confident and
strong team behind him.
"Russia won't "be spoken to in the language of sanctions"..."?
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
No country that has self-respect, no respectable person can possibly accept to be spoken
to and treated generally in that disgustingly arrogant, beyond contemptuous manner. The
terms and acts of abuse used by the Empire's representatives, including in the most
"prestigious" international institutions, have by now gone way too far repeatedly (a
euphemism!!!), with no limit in sight.
It is time for Russia and Russians to impose respect to those creatures come straight out
of the Empire's swamps and sewers! Being treated as they now accept to be treated by the
Empire is beyond unacceptable. To hear Russia's highest representatives refer to such
despicably disgusting bullies as "partners" is not amusing anymore. Only unbearably
painful...
Time to STOP playing the part of the poor victim of the Empire (US+EU+NATO+other
bits...). Time to adopt China's model, China now promising to hit the Empire hard and till
the very end of that war on tariffs. "Even if the Trump administration wants to take the
trade war to the direction that bilateral trade and investment is suppressed to zero, China
will meet all the challenges."
"... Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA. ..."
"... A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster. ..."
First, and this is crucial, Russia is at war. Let me repeat this: Russia is at war with the AngloZionist Empire. The fact
that this war is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic does not make it less real or less dangerous, if only
because these ratios can very rapidly change.
So is China, except we're not as aware of it. Especially the information warfare part.
I think Putin should just kick democracy to the curb and make sure his opponents never have a chance to even deny him a majority.
The west already regards Russia as an "non-democratic authoritarian state" anyway, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of perception.
Yes and no. It is much more complex with China than with Russia. US-Chinese relations have a peculiar dynamics, although at
some pint of time things may get really dicey, no doubt about it.
Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically
balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA.
I'm praying for both of our countries to turn it around, each according to its own culture, traditions, and core people's wishes
(I.e. I want a less centralized system than Russia has, and than WE have for that matter, and generally more individual liberty
than most Russians would want. America and Russia can develop on different paths and still be effective partners, increasing trade
and military cooperation to destroy Islamists, crush piracy on the sea, deter and contain China to Asia, etc.)
A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the
us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop
supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster.
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is
either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.
Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged
by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin
and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB
faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation
of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in
government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough
to create plausible distance for public consumption.
For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be
seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education
and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad.
Those are Putin's primary achievements.
On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three
years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and
light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western
competition.
"... The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia). ..."
"... They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West. ..."
"... When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid. ..."
"... "Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems." ..."
"... I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go. ..."
"... A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress. ..."
"... If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. ..."
"... Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign . ..."
"... "I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality." ..."
"... 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 the British Jewish 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. ..."
"... Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this. ..."
"... As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide. ..."
"... http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss ..."
"... "I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea. ..."
"... That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions? ..."
"... The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people ..."
"... It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course. ..."
"... I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse. ..."
"... The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions. ..."
"... Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion ..."
The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent
for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth
by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia).
They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect.
But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos.
Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West.
When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing
you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is
very stupid.
Every aspect of human existence evolves around one basic (mis?)calculation: Am I better than someone else? Every second of every
day individuals, organizations, political parties, companies, countries, religions (God knows why) are trying to prove the above
– that they are better than the next in their respective category.
There are only 4 possible outcomes here:
You are better than someone and you can prove it. – ideal outcome
You are better than someone, but you can't prove it. – It sucks
You are no better than someone, but you have the means to manipulate the outcome into appearing like you are better. –
Probably the most unfair outcome.
You are no better than someone and if you try to prove that you are, you prove the opposite.
The current state of affairs between US and Russia is that US are aware that number 1 doesn't apply, they believe that they
can pull off a number 3, but I think that the most realistic assessment is number 4.
The underlying assumption of your comment is that applying pressure to Russia works in achieving the West's goals. But everything
we have seen from Russia in at least the last decade shows that pressuring Russia doesn't work. Ergo your conclusions are wrong.
Maybe it's time you start learning something from history.
"Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along
with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve.
And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems."
[....]
"And, you know, people don't realize Russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. They were sanctioned at a very high level,
and that took place very recently. It's now time to get back to healing a world that is shattered and broken. Those are very important
things. And I feel that having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world
and an asset to our country, not a liability."
[....]
"President Obama wanted to get along with Russia, but the chemistry wasn't there. Getting along with other nations is a good
thing, not a bad thing -- believe me. It's a good thing, not a bad thing."
I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago,
perhaps at the point Flynn was let go.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of
the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced
such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions,
finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist
compliance with the mandate from Congress.
If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to
question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. Putin is standing in the way of greater Israel and a Jewish
world empire that is furthered by American military might. Despite his faults he is a strong nationalist leader who's preventing
Jewish globalists from turning Russia into a global plantation like America and their economy into a revenue stream for Jewish
robber barons like they have the American economy.
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is
now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917 until Jews began losing control in the 50′s and 60′s.
Now the red diaper babies and their progeny loom large over America.
Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system"
Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving
it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign .
Interesting ..but I can see no reason for always claiming that the money laundering is done by the 'Russia State' instead of
private individual actors .the only motivation I can see for the State doing it is to turn rubles into western dollars and English
pounds .but since the dollar dominates in trade, for now anyway. the English pound isn't such a lure for Russia's holdings of
foreign currencies.
UK promises to crack down on assets of corrupt oligarchs – The Times
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain will use new powers to seize the assets of foreign criminals and corrupt politicians, The Times
newspaper reported on Saturday quoting the security minister. Investors from Russia, China and the Middle East have poured billions
into London, buying everything from luxury properties to entire companies, but the provenance of some of those funds has been
questioned by transparency campaigners. It is unclear how much money is laundered through Britain, but the National Crime Agency
has said calculations of between 36 billion pounds ($50.83 billion) and 90 billion pounds ($127.08 billion) are "a significant
underestimate".
Security minister Ben Wallace told The Times that the government would use powers regarding unexplained wealth to freeze and
recover property if individuals cannot explain how they acquired assets over 50,000 pounds ($70,000).
What we know from the Laundromat exposé is that certainly there have been links to the [Russian] state," he was quoted as saying.
"The government's view is that we know what they are up to and we are not going to let it happen any more."
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America
is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917
I am fairly sure that those in Russia who need to know already know plenty about Jew/Isr led USA Russian policy ..they've been
after Russia for a long time.
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.
Zionist 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 the British Jewish 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.
I've always appreciated your candid exposure of American hypocrisy and stupidity, Saker, especially as unfairly and dangerously
directed at Russia. But explain to me why most Russian opinion columnists, such as yourself, have to make their pieces as long
as a novel by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Something to do with the R1a haplotype perhaps? Many long introns amidst the essential exons
perhaps? Or, just an inability to stop when having a good time?
The US congress is such a freaking circus of idiots, clowns, whores for Israel, crooks, perverts and incompetents I don't think
I can stomach keeping up with their malfeasance much longer.
But I will leave this snippet -- -the 'list' and idea to sanction Russian individuals was the work of former Russian hating
State Dept Amb to Poland, uber Jew Daniel Fried working in conjunction with uber Jew Sen Ben Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee.
That tells you all you need to know. ((They)) were delighted to seize on Hillary's Russian excuse for losing the election and
may have even instigated it to Hillary.
It will be interesting to see if the oligarchs faced with the choice of Russia or Europe or US as a home for their billions
ever meet with little boy Kushner who might guarantee them safe bank accounts in Israel for a fee of course lol.
Crocodile tears. ~15 million Soviet citizens were killed or murdered by Nazi invaders. Plus ~3 million Red Army POWs deliberately
starved to death, or died to due deliberate neglect, withholding medical aid, etc by Nazi invaders. A total of ~10 million Red
Army troops lost their lives to prevent the extermination of Slavic peoples by Nazi invaders.
The whole hate the Russians deal is a Zionist ploy as the Russians are defeating ISIS aka AL CIADA in Syria and since ISIS and
all of its branches are a creation of the U.S. and ISRAEL and BRITAIN via the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 , the Zionists cannot
accept defeat and are turning the U.S. against Russia .
If anyone doubts that Israel and the zionist neocons control the U.S. gov, just remember that ISRAEL and the deepstate did
911 and got away with it, that is control in spades.
The last week or so the left has been bombastically upset at Trump because he did not enact more sanctions against Russia, and
were pleased at the action against the Russian Oligarchs though. – These people are always convinced that the government has the
power to do things by fiat- take away guns, punish global warming skeptics, sanction politically incorrect speech – lets pass
a law-. The right is not immune from this instinct either with drug wars .etc. This belief
that the direct application of force 180 degrees against the foe, never a thought to strategy or cause and effect or blowback
or complex analysis, – brute force and ignorance- into the valley of death rode the 600. Those drunk with power grasp the reins
and charge madly. The drunk are not great thinkers. Putin raises a glass to their return.
As always, simplistic pro-Putin propaganda buried in a mass of details so as to bog people down. The centrepiece is at the end:
sanctions. The basic argument is always "lift the sanctions" then some pretext or other is trotted out to justify that pre-ordained
conclusion. In today's serving, the sanctions are useless and the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin. What is interesting
though is that the author claims to see opposition to Putin within the elite but (needlwss to say!) "the people" are solidly behind
Putin. Reading between the lines, that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite.
" ..weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions." Same strategy is operating in US now. Some allege Soros is
promoting this, but he's not the only one. [#Resist was/is underwritten by MeetUp! CEO.] Can you give citations for your quotes
about Nationalities Working Group? Thanks.
It is getting rather tiresome, the "The Russians did it" meme. Whatever happens that contradicts US perceptions of reality , "The
Russians did it". Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this. It has has been dis
proven that Russia meddled in the French and German elections, and while the Brexit vote is inconclusive , we still have not been
exposed to the smoking gun.
There is no doubt that the US MSM is trying to steam roll all objections to this stance, but proof,
where is it? The bought ads on Fakebook is laughable at best, and the new Dutch source is another "Flat earther theory". Has general
American IQ deteriorated so much in the span of a decade ? I doubt it.
Anon from TN
The author did not need so many words to state the obvious: the US shot itself in the foot again, and now it's going to start
complaining that it hurts. Anyone familiar with human history knows that dying empires invariably make maladaptive moves that
speed up their demise. This was the scenario with Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, and French Empires. Look on the bright side,
though: the US Empire follows in the footsteps of the greatest.
' that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite '
What disneyland character are you portraying ? I'm guessing Dopey from the Seven Dwarfs. US has zero ability
to influence the trajectory of Russia which is straight up like the Russian rocket launches that take Nasa astronauts into space
for the last seven years. US sanctions have only been a blessing to Russia
For one thing they have driven a wedge between EU and the US especially Germany which is a natural Russian ally. For another
they are helping Putin to clean up the remaining rotten apples in the Russian billionaire class by forcing them to bring their
offshore money home or get the hell out of Russia and have whatever they leave behind confiscated by the Russian people. I have
noticed you here as a monkey with a serious Russia chip on his shoulder
I'll be checking back to see what you are spouting as soon the US Ponzi scheme economy starts collapsing. The only thing holding
up this house of cards is the petrodollar which is already in the frying pan. Russia and China along with other emerging powers
like Iran and the Brics are working round the clock to dismantle the present US-based world financial order. The Brics already
exceed the G7 in total GDP. Enjoy your coming poverty
Anon from TN: The Europeans will never appreciate to what extent the thinking and behavior of Americans is determined by the
view that "this is not my problem". They would also never understand or believe how parochial and uninformed the people in the
US are. Then again, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of: while the US elites are at least open about their ulterior motives,
the Europeans fell into a trap of anti-Russian sanctions (which hurt them a lot more than the US, BTW) by virtue of pure hypocrisy.
Sorry I don't have the tea leaves to read between the lines, but I was reading that a number of business leaders from the EU
was just in the Crimea, and I rather doubt they were there for a vacation, sanctions are a double edged sword and it would seem
the EU are feeling them as much if not more than Russia .
Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this.
Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse.
As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German
or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan
independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought
the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up –
the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling
proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading
them far and wide.
So, it I were you, I'd first question the collective European IQ, before laughing at the Americans. The European policy towards
Russia for the past 25 years has been unnecessarily confrontational and generally extremely stupid. After all, the US is far away,
but Europe is right next door to Russia. If push comes to shove, you'd be the first to get a kick in your tender behind. It happened
before, remember? Not only your IQ seems to have deteriorated, even assuming it was ever high, but your memory as well.
http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events,
etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States
Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss
"I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for
the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled
international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call
the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then
use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters.
"Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse."
Context of '1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
[MORE]
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of
whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter's group includes Richard Perle,
Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered
the "intellectual godfather" of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful
influence on the US's foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War.
The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to
the ascendancy of the "McGovern liberals" in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
for leadership. Jackson calls himself a "muscular Democrat"; others call him "the Senator from Boeing" for his strong support
of the US defense industry.Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become
some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott
Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson's office -- Jackson's neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting
two foreign dictators -- Stalin and/or Hitler -- or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp.
35-41] Wolfowitz's father's family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World
War II "shaped a lot of my views." [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, "[My] family got wiped
out by Hitler, and all this stuff about working things out -- well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn't make any sense."
Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise
means appeasement, just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department
official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, "It is use force first and diplomacy
down the line."
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from
organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying
the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. "I can see psychologically why it would not be
difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners," says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose
son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. "It was in reaction to the betrayal." Many neoconservatives like
Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle
is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson's staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls "an insistent,
uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style" of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves
on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is
betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions
and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating
the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965),
The neocon team of "analysts" becomes known as "Team B," with "Team A" being the CIA's own analytical team. It is unprecedented
to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the
entire project is conducted in secret.
Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing "a
kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B's only purpose
is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Although the entire "Team B" intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to
be classified and secret, the team's neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call "a massive campaign to inflame
fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community -- thanks to strategically
placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times." Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard
Pipes is "jubilant" over "pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]'s analysis" of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise
"an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA." [Unger, 2007, pp. 57]
In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: "For more than a
third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to 'rearm.' In the 1980s, the call was
heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected
its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became
the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing." [Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, 4/1993
Sanctions are almost always counterproductive. We should have learned this from Cuba, but we didn't. When US breaks connections
with a country, we force the country to develop its own skills and products, or to do business with our enemies. Result: the sanctioned
country gets stronger, our enemies get richer, and US loses business. Total loss for US, total gain for everyone else.
There already is the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", known as Birobidzhan, in Eastern Siberia. It is much larger than the land
mass of any configuration of the State of Israel, tons of fresh water, natural resources. And get this: they wouldn't have to
behave like Nazis to benefit from a land ready for them.
There is a monument on Mamayev Kurgan, called The motherland calls. Luckily, when the motherland called millions of Russians
answered. The Russians not only like to answer the call of duty, but also the call of booty – as the Germans found out around
1945.
It's not like the Europeans haven't gone on a genocidal rampages before – Spanish and Anglo-Saxon massacres of native Americans
comes to mind. The real genius of those monkeys – the Germans – is that they attempted to treat the Russians like they were American
Indians. If anything, the Russians were too kind to those beasts.
Can Israel be trusted with nukes? They, like the U$A have exemptions from IAEA inspections. They have equal exclusiveness in
their military doctrine. I recall an anon poster a couple weeks ago stating that Israel has positioned nukes in strategic locations,
including continental U$A and Europe, influencing Israel-favourable decisions, explaining why Western countries make decisions
that are NOT in their best interests.
Well, Russia must not be baffled. After having so much baffling experience with partners being baffled is not a good thing especially
after 2 consequitive Soviet and then Russia leaders basically gave to USA everything they wanted on a plate with blue stripe so
to speak only to get baffled yet again by partners not giving an inch. This is zero sum game and relaxed attitude is not part
of it. Every single opportunity must be used to undermine remaining pillars of USA might namely her currency status and international
financial system which is built by as Sacker said uncle Shmuel for uncle Shmuel benefits. USA military is just an outgrowth which
will collapse like sand cattle without massive cash infusions allowed only because those two pillars mentioned above still standing.
Hoping that there will be some reasonable people in Washington with whom some detente is possible is dangerous illusion. There
not going to be lasting detente between USA and Russia until USA is reduced to her natural state of regional northern American
power with zero influence everywhere beyond Mexican and Canadian borders. Now I always wonder where indeed Putin is taking Russia.
I am watching Russia tv and see sort of very ugly place which sole existence is to dumb down Russian people and destroy people
morals and ethics. I wonder what kind of population and new generation of russians can grow watching this? I know there are still
many people born and brought up in ussr to be immune to this garbage but what about young people? Where indeed Putin is taking
Russia and does he need dumbed down American way population for this. Not to be forgotten is that people's strength is country
strength. What is going on is quite simple. America is plainly hot bed of capitalism and capitalism is quite obviously in death
throws. Exponential growth of debt around the world and continuous reduction of life standards and overall moral decay around
the world is a proof of this and obviously Russia and other former socialist states did a very bad bet on capitalism. Results
of the past 25 years are extremely disappointing and downright catastrophic for long term survival of the very people who adopted
this dead end system which passed its prime long time ago and dying. Communism is not popular at the moment but I have no doubt
it will come back because nothing in the past 25 years convinced me that capitalism is better.
Anon from TN
Let me add a little vignette. In Stalingrad (now Volgograd), there are preserved ruins of one of only two buildings that remained
semi-standing: Pavlov's house. Not only it was defended for 60 days against Wehrmacht (longer than France), Germans lost more
solders there than they lost conquering France. That should explain to Europeans why Russians don't take Europe too seriously:
they say that every 100 years or so the whole of Europe unites, makes war on Russia, gets beaten to pulp, and then licks its wounds
for another century. There was Napoleon in the nineteenth century, there was Hitler in the twentieth century, there is NATO in
the twenty first
Was there no bravery on the German side ?After the Normandy invasion western generals expected the war to be over at Christmas,
or even in September, when they tried to take the Dutch bridges, and failed miserably. It in my opinion is amazing how one country
withstood GB, USSR and USA so long.
Alas NATO seems to be planning a nuclear war. If this war comes, it will be the 'war that ends all wars', as Wilson said about
WWI, because no human being will survive, as all bigger animals. Rats seem to have a chance.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the
law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list.
Have heard that they went to a Forbes list to get the sanction names. This looks very very bad – it makes us look ridicules.
Congress doing foreign policy is wrong. Of course, this is Jew business – AIPAC doings. America for America – NOT – America for
Israel. Think Peace -- Art
Anon from TN. Yes, rodents, insects, and simpler life forms will inherit the Earth. The elites, if they start that war, won't
survive, either. Poor consolation for the rest of us, though.
Definite answer is Yes! Israeli government are not nuts like Kim. Wherever Israel did put their nukes, the only reason is that
the responsibility and cost of maintenance they did put on some other suckers.
Israel has nothing to fear. If there would be some concentrated and dangerous attack on Israel US air force would be there in
the matter of hours. Maybe even Russians would help with their air force.
To attack Israel is out of question. Maybe some terrorist attack is an option, but that is difficult to prevent
Actually, it is your ziocon propaganda that is simplistic: -- " the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin." -- An
honest cooperation between the US and Russian Federation would be the best solution for humanity at large. But this cooperation
would be the worst outcome for the bloody "chosen" dreaming of Eretz Israel and world dominance, while they can't stop whining
about "eternal victimhood."
Since 1999, four million human beings, including a multitude of children, died in the Middle East because of your bloody mythological
"promised land" of Israel.
Probably they won't have any choice. The more that it would be in the heart of the new Eurasian economic configuration. But
they still want Ukraine and Crimea. That's why you hear so much talk about the Khazars.
"From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms
to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing."
And look at the corruption within the highest echelons of the US government and security apparatus -- the opportunists and ignoramuses
have taken the upper hand. This is very convenient for Israel-firsters but deadly for the US. The hatred of ziocons towards Russia
is boundless and irrational.
"If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question
the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. "
Ken, I think that The Saker is just baffled on their behalf.
Ever heard of existential threat, sport? WW1 and the Crimean war were not existential threats to Russia. The minute they turned
into such, the outcome would have been different.
Here is what sanctions do. I recently saw a story about a German farmer/dairy expert who
went to Russia and jump started a large network of dairy farms in Russia. Before sanctions, Russia thought the could buy their
dairy from Europe, but after the sanctions, Russian knew they needed domestic suppliers, and lo an behold, this German (Joint
Russian German citizen actually and friend of Putin) was phonemically successful and now there is a robust local Dairy Industry
in Russia. Now the people who are howling are the European Farmers who used to have a healthy export market for their products.
well, if shamir is right and the looted accounts of the old money is equal to 1 trillion usd. that is alot of money for the
people in charge to not see green and only green. doubt long term consequences/effects would ever factor into the decision.
That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have
been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely)
Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or
Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions?
The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product
that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves
in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people
Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is trying hard to work with the Europeans on many
join projects. What do you think the creation of such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen?
I predict two things:
1. It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it
will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.
2. I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German
– Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse.
The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US,
rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions.
There is no subject that he doesn't derail by going on about Wasps his intent is to "divide and conquer" the building momentum
against neocon foreign policy.
Selecting wealthy individuals at random regardless of political beliefs indeed makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you had read
the rest of the article you would understand why. Then again, swine don't typically understand the value of pearls.
"... President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him. ..."
"... The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history. ..."
"... The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia. ..."
"... Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. ..."
The Russian government, media, and public don't know what to make of the US Treasury's
"Kremlim list." The Treasury list contains the names of the top echelon of Russian government
and business leadership. The Russians understand that the list is unfriendly and furthers
Washington's policy of worsening the relationship between the two major nuclear powers, but
beyond that the list seems to be a mystery to them.
President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin
was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him.
1) The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs,
and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By
suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their
Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their
companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington
intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian
elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is
difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American
president in history.
2) The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of
Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response
from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia.
The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and
Russia.
The lack of a meaningful Russian response will encourage more insults and actual sanctions
against Putin's supporters, which will cause some of them to separate from Putin in order to
protect their own economic and career interests. In the past Washington has used sanctions in
efforts to deprive leaders of public support. With the Kremlin list, Washington has changed its
tactics and is targeting the reputations and economic interests of the leadership class. The
list is Washington's attempt to deprive Putin of the support of the top echelon of government
and business leaders. The list is a bullet aimed at Putin's heart.
Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a
devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests
the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of
Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of
Russia.
Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's
"shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any
consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it
submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada,
Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush
declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia
can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org
by permission of author or representative) ← The Second Dossier
So, the long-awaited " Kremlin List "
happened to be a purely formal action. What was made public is just a meaningless compilation
of names partly taken from a phonebook with some of them cribbed from the Forbes' Billionaires list – a kind
of Who Is Who reference publication. The administration had to release the document as required
by law, so it adopted the "get what you want and leave me alone" approach. At least, that's
what the unclassified part of the report looks like. Technically correct, the list is just a
mockery in its essence. Nothing in the report indicates that the US is in possession of
information about the individuals' involvement in any wrongdoings. The paper says it is not a
sanctions list though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
said it would result in restrictive measures. He did not specify the date.
It's not the "Kremlin List" that really matters. On Jan.29, one day before the document was
made public, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee
voted to release a classified memorandum, revealing the misconduct by the FBI and the
Justice Department in the Russia investigation. The paper expresses grave concern over the way
the investigation, launched by the Obama administration, was conducted. The lawmakers took the
decision ignoring the position of
the Justice Department, which had warned not take this "extraordinary reckless" step. It's
highly probable that if an investigation into the abuses is launched, the trail will lead to
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's not Donald Trump but rather his opponents who will be at center of the scandal with
media raising ballyhoo (and they will do it as practice shows). Everything will turn around to
put the Democratic backers of Hillary Clinton on the defensive with the president's hands
untied giving him much more freedom to implement his Russia policy. He won't keep one eye on
Congress when it comes to dealing with Russia. Trump will become the defender of democracy
threatened by Clinton's camp. The "Kremlin's List" will be on the backburner.
Russia knows well all the ins and outs of US politics. It is reserved and patient but it
cannot forever abstain from striking back. Both governments realize this fact and act
accordingly. They don't sever the contacts, so that wouldn't have to start from scratch when
the times change.
On the contrary, they do what is possible under the circumstances. It's enough to look at
the news that doesn't hit headlines but tells about the events of great significance. For
instance, Sergey Naryshkin, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, has recently visited the United States to
discuss terrorism. The Russian foreign intelligence chief is under sanctions but the visit was
important enough to make the US executive turn a blind eye on this fact. Naryshkin was granted
entry to the country. It's hard to imagine such a high-ranking official coming alone.
So, the information exchange with Russia is too important to be affected by ups and downs in
the relationship. It's enough to remember how the interaction
between the intelligence services of both countries prevented a terrorist act in Saint
Petersburg last December. In his recent
interview with Russian Echo Moskvy ( Echo of Moscow ) radio
station, US Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman
said the time is propitious for a Russia-US bilateral summit. He also emphasized the
importance of military-to-military communications. Until now, the leaders have met only on the
sidelines of top-level international events. A summit could change a lot of things, addressing
many problems beyond the scope of bilateral relationship.
2018 is an election year in the United States. The Democrats' chances will diminish greatly
when the secret memo is released. With economy going strong, the chances for Republicans to
strengthen their position in both houses look good enough. So do the opportunities for the
president to keep his pre-election promise to improve the relationship with Russia.
"... There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage. ..."
"... Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses? ..."
"... Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism. ..."
In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a
list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are
"gangsters," "members of Putin's gang," "threats," "people deserving to be sanctioned," or
however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list. The absurd list includes the Prime
Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom,
Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian
political and business leadership is corrupt.
The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian
presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin's public
support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present
American stooges as Russia's true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are
stupid enough to fall for such a trick.
Washington's list has three purposes:
To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.
To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense
minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British "infrastructure
apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths," and create "total chaos
within the country."
To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House
Intelligence Committee's report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the
Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump.
Washington's Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of
the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing
from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political
effort to shield Trump from accountability.
There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia,
because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in
Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized
because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of
southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires
the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign
policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.
The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers
Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist
neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use
diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American
diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.
Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to
provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come
to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?
For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist
neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would
require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the
media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European
political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that
Washington provides.
As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with
Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a
neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the "discussion" is to further undermine
US-Russian relations.
The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and
thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present
Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The
non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more
provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the
neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual
provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a
Russian pre-emptive action.
Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in
Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only
threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism.
"... In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations. ..."
"... Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt. ..."
"... In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt. ..."
"... As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. ..."
The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react "calmly" to the U.S. Treasury
Department's list of "corrupt oligarchs" due Monday. The list is designed to "name and shame"
elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin's government. It will
be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.
"I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without
emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one
legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago," - US
Ambassador John Huntsman via - newsru (translated)
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will
react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating "The principle of reciprocity
remains," suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on
oligarchs.
As we
previously reported , the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the
Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by "their
closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" in order to penalize the Kremlin for its
alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The report is intended to "name and shame" Russia's elite who prop up Putin , and to send
a message "that Putin's aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be
very costly to them," said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the
State Department Russia sanctions office.
It is likely to signal to Russia's political and business classes that they'd be better
off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions
against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.
" The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of
this list ," Fried said. "They focused on this immediately, and they're very worried about
it. " - USA Today
The list will include "indices of corruption with respect to those individuals," along with
any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a
liquidation frenzy - with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way
off the list.
Some people who think they're likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential
impact on their investments , two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are
liquidating holdings , according to their U.S. advisers.
Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with
experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked
at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to
Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was
contacted . -
Bloomberg
Corruption Index
The Treasury's report must include "indices of corruption , " which will list any foreign
assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. " Because of the nervousness that the Russian
business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back
businesses , treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it," said Daniel
Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 's global financial
sanctions unit.
Russia's well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the
list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe
the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by
adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. - USA Today
Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them
with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas
assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued
special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S.
Treasury.
Separate sanctions handed down
As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will
confuse Monday's list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over
the Ukraine crisis.
On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a "blacklist" which now contains
21 Russian or
Ukraainian nationals and nine companies - most of which are power or energy firms. The
Treasury's announcement reads in part:
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s)
related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to
Russia's transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea. Today's
action is part of Treasury's continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia
until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements. This action underscores
the U.S. government's opposition to Russia's occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to
recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula. These sanctions follow the European
Union's recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As a result of today's action, any property or interests in property of the designated
persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be
blocked. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally
prohibited.
"The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements," said
Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "Those who provide goods, services, or material support
to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine
are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions."
Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by
previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the
private sector with sanctions compliance.
Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed
Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two
nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential
election.
In December 2016, President Obama
closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election,"
expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase
sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly
signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime
minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.
Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration "thanked" Russia again - giving
them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and
New York City.
Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia,
branding the country a "rival power" and "revisionist power," while imposing new sanctions on
several individuals linked to the Kremlin.
Trump's Executive Order
Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S.
Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an
Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of
foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt.
In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the
Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for
corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium
deal deemed corrupt.
As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have
serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any
Russians deemed corrupt by the United States.
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
"... Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC. ..."
Reporters representing U.S. media outlets will be banned from Russian Parliament, in a
response for Russia's Kremlin-funded international TV news channel RT having its Congressional
press accreditation
stripped earlier this week.
A ban on attending sessions of the State Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, will
be introduced "for all U.S. media," Olga Savastyanova, head of the Duma's committee on
regulations and control, was quoted as saying by RBC news.
According to Savostyanova, the measure is Russia's "reciprocal response to the U.S.
Congress' decision" regarding RT. The restriction is expected to begin Dec. 6, after being
formally adopted by the Duma council and a plenary meeting.
Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S.
journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor
Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC.
Many expected the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 to lead to
improved ties between Russia and the United States. That didn't happen.
Relations between Washington and Moscow are now at a nadir, not helped by Trump's recent
speech lumping in Russia with China as "rival powers" to the U.S. and the primary threats to
America's economic dominance in the world.
For Hollywood, which has relied on Russia as a significant market for its films and TV
series, 2018 is likely to bring more bad news and more challenges to doing business.
Kremlin watchers will be focused on March 18, the date of Russia's presidential election.
While the result is not in doubt -- Vladimir Putin is certain to secure another six-year term
-- it is anyone's guess how far President Putin will go in his "Russia First" policies of
economic nationalism.
After the 2012 election, for example, Putin took a sharply anti-Western stance, imposing new
restrictions on foreign companies working in Russia and cracking down on his country's mostly
pro-Western liberal opposition. Most observers expect this trend to continue in 2018.
The question is: How far will Putin go? Here is THR's look at three key challenges
for Hollywood in Russia that will be in focus next year.
New Taxes
Moscow's Russia First policy -- which Russia's government calls "import substitution" -- has
looked to the tax code as a way to protect the local film industry at the expense of Hollywood
and other foreign imports.
Russia backed down from a radical idea to hike the exhibition license fee for theatrical
releases in the country -- the fee, which is mandatory for a theatrical release in Russia, was
set to jump from 3,500 rubles ($60) to 5 million rubles ($85,000) -- but the ministry is still
adamant about taxing foreign releases in one way or another.
Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, an ardent Russia First advocate keen to protect
homegrown films against the Hollywood invasion, is expected to lose his position in the new
cabinet, but his replacement will likely be drawn from the same conservative and anti-Western
contingent.
A proposal, introduced mid-December, would implement a 3 percent tax hike on all foreign
theatrical releases. Expect that to pass easily and go into law in early 2018.
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting
this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.
The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and
NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed
Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.
The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The
goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.
The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher
round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More LikeShare
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US,
ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common
person in the US.
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians
has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))
For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt
your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish
Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.
For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan
did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into
Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.
Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But
still not advisable to poke that bear further.
Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"
Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham
Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that
way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered
Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be
careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more
See More LikeShare
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help
us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook,
to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions
pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that
what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More LikeShare Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system
is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal
state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions)
will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine
got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative
under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain
antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts
of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for
the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical
for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western
leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed
businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the
U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down.
This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
He{Suvorov, Russian press secretary) pointed out that when picking the right car for
their country's Interior Ministry, Slovaks are "reasonably guided by its characteristics and
advantages over other analogues in the market."
"And it turns out that the Russian-made Tigr is safer, more reliable and cheaper than
American, German, French and Swiss armored cars," he said.
Suvorov added that Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the
Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment.
They refer to various arguments, including "the factor of [anti-Russian] sanctions,"
according to Suvorov.
A major purpose of the sanctions appears to be an effort to protect Western markets and
not just "punishment" of Russia. With the availability of highly competitive Russian civil
aircraft, it would be easy to surmise that the sanctions have an overt commercial goal.
The west is all about free trade as long as they have the advantage. When faced with a
serious competitor making superior products it throws a tantrum and puts up trade barriers. I
guess the WTO does nothing to protect Russia's interests.
The west is great with free trade so long as it gets to make the rules but not follow them.
Trump's current hard line at the NAFTA talks is exemplary – he wants to increase
American content in everything and create more opportunity for American business without any
quid pro quo whatever. Really he figures he is in a no-lose situation; he is opposed
to NAFTA anyway, as a businessman, and so he figures he will drive such a hard bargain that
if Mexico and Canada walk away in disgust, he got what he wanted. If they capitulate, there
will still be NAFTA but the deck will be so stacked in America's favour that the other two
parties will basically just be draining their resources into the USA.
Russia's Foreign Ministry does not rule out ordering the United States to cut its diplomatic
staff in Russia to 300 people or below, the RIA news agency cited Georgy Borisenko, the head of
the ministry's North America Department, as saying on Wednesday.
In July, Moscow ordered the United States to cut the number of its diplomatic and technical
staff working in Russia by around 60 percent, to 455, part of a diplomatic row.
The figure of 455 was meant to mirror the total number of Russian diplomats working in the
United States, but also included Russian nationals working at the United Nations in New York,
Borisenko told the agency.
"The fact that in the summer we took into account the people working for Russia's mission at
the UN, this was good will," Borisenko told RIA.
"If they haven't appreciated this, we have the full right to reduce ... the number of U.S.
diplomats," he said, saying Moscow could stop taking Russian U.N. staff into account when
calculating what parity between the two countries meant.
"In this case, the number of American personnel in Russia should decline to a level of 300
or below."
(Reporting ; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)
SANCTIONS. According to the
UN rapporteur , sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US$3.2 billion a month; the
Russian economy has lost US$55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US$155
billion.
"... Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked." ..."
"... But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said. ..."
"... Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. ..."
"... He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in." ..."
"... "We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that." ..."
"... If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'" ..."
UNITED NATIONS (AP) ! Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with
the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful"
actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."
Sergey Lavrov told a news conference there has been a lengthy campaign claiming Russia
interfered in the U.S. election to ensure victory for President Donald Trump ! "but we do not
see any facts."
When he asked U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson how Russia could confirm his words that
Moscow interfered in the American election process, Lavrov said Tillerson replied: "I cannot
show you anything because this is confidential information.'"
Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United
States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved
in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not
a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked."
Lavrov recalled World War II when the United States and Russia fought as allies against Nazi
Germany.
But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's
administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a
Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications,"
he said.
Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a
result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and
international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he
said. The U.S. and Russian militaries maintain contact to prevent accidents or
confrontations between their forces fighting in Syria, but Lavrov said "in order to eliminate
terrorists we need not only de-confliction, we need coordination."
He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and
Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S.
military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who
find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop
beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They
did it, and that's the reality we live in."
He was asked about Trump's combative speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday in which the
American president threatened "to totally destroy North Korea" if the U.S. is forced to defend
itself or its allies and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un responded calling Trump "deranged" and
saying he will "pay dearly" for his threats.
Calling the exchange of threats "quite bad," Lavrov said "it is unacceptable to simply sit
back and to look at the nuclear and military gambles of North Korea, but it is also
unacceptable to start war on the peninsula."
"We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump
administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at
mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such
a request "he would try to fulfill that."
The Russian minister said he had no new initiatives to bring the two sides together,
explaining that he believes "the potential" for the Russian-Chinese freeze-for-freeze proposal
"is not yet exhausted." It would halt North Korean nuclear and missile tests in exchange for
the U.S. and South Korea stopping their joint military exercises, but the Trump administration
has rejected it.
Lavrov was asked whether he saw a link between the crisis in North Korea and Trump's threat
to pull out of the 2015 agreement to cap Iran's nuclear program. He stressed that all other
parties to the deal, including Russia, support the agreement and don't want it reopened. "Right
now, North Korea is being told, renounce nuclear weapons and we will lift the sanctions,"
Lavrov said.
If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I
need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'"
If Critics such as neocon
Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By
Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons
leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous
Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran
and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective
with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully
tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this
noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless
manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United
States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his
or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between
Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state.
Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but
Tillerson is the worst of the lot.
Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever
since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure.
It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department
will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that
replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of
the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority.
The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain
for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.
So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation,
I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump
would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.
Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump
was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful
that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but
that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern
times.
Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely
to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's
administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description
be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump
would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with
military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.
Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade
him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't
going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should
assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson
has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge
that his successor could still be even worse.
Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation
by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the
corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out
some don't.
Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted.
Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran
all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their
advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of
the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office
a new diplomat will have to wait.
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general
on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would
be at least one too many in this Cabinet."
And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter
of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society,
these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success,
or even sound judgment.
It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent
Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency
issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens.
Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan,
one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.
So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd
leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of
the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume
his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice
for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General
& Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is
needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler
comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more
than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums
for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary
of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear
God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)
However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes
taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the
Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the
last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons)
lefy in Trump's Administration.
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before:
George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I
can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that
there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He
seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer
Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness
in Libya.
As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated
that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring
initiative:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump
might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign,
who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to
Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
"... Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done. Some related matters caught my eye. ..."
"... well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election ..."
The disagreement between US President Donald Trump and his main critics on Russia lingers
on. In a July 31 MSNBC segment, former US Ambassador to Russia,
Michael McFaul said
that Trump was tame in his reply to the Russian government measures
taken against US diplomatic interests in Russia. For McFaul, what earlier happened to Russian
diplomatic staff in the US is apparently okay, unlike the Russian retaliation, which came
months AFTER the US based Russian diplomatic personnel were penalized. McFaul misleadingly
underscored that Trump's playing nice with Putin hasn't worked.
Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at
improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his
part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be
politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done.
Some related matters caught my eye.
... ... ...
Trump and Tillerson, have expressed a reluctance in going along with the
increased sanctions against Russia, which is overwhelmingly supported by the mostly groupthink
minded (on Russia) US Congress and Senate. Trump and Tillerson can make a strong case on why
the sanctions are counterproductive. Specifically:
the EU's (notably Germany's) negative reply to the advocated further sanctions
Russia's retaliatory response
limits in persuading Russia to go against its reasonable interests.
When it comes to US mass media and body politic, the last particular is very much in the
too hot to handle category. The present lack of a strongly detailed Trump rebuttal to
the Congress and Senate is what led Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
to say
that the US president has been too capitulationist. Medvedev also said that the
Trump signed sanctions bill is an attempt to squeeze Russia out of foreign markets. (The bill
seeks to penalize Western companies doing business in Russia.)
Within US mass media, there've been some second guessing of the Capitol Hill groupthink
sanctions against Russia. David Ignatius' August 3 Washington Post
column
expresses
that view. Notwithstanding, Ignatius clings to the faulty belief in "Russia's
well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election
." I'd love to see him directly
reply to the
counterclaim
on that opinion, which he presents as a clearly established fact.
The Tucker Carlson hosted Fox News show continues to provide some reasonably dissenting
views.
One such recent segment
featured retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who believes
that Capitol Hill has been overly bellicose towards Russia. Mind you that Macgregor is no
Russophile. He expressed doubt on whether the US and Russia can ever become allies and
characterized the latter as a periodic 300 year menace to the West.
On this point, I expressed my disagreement to Macgregor (who I've had some prior limited
discourse with) by noting that:
The West hasn't been so monolithic, in conjunction with Russia not being such a
perennial threat.
The US fought Germany in two world wars – not Russia.
Russian behavior during America's Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War was more
favorable to America than the British stance.
Russia joined Britain, Prussia and Austria in opposing Napoleon.
Russia had openly inquired about NATO membership upon the Soviet collapse.
Russia was the first nation to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian cooperation
with the US in Afghanistan.
I'm of the belief that patriotically minded Russians should be able to acknowledge bad
moments on Russia's part relative to Poland and some others. Conversely, the same should hold
true when it comes to the wrongs of others. While glorying Poland and bashing Russia, The
National Interest article in question omits the following:
1919 – Under Josef Pilsudski, Poland seeks to take former Russian Empire territory,
largely inhabited by non-Poles with ties to Russia. The Pilsudski led Poles reject a
Russian White offer to combat the Reds, when the Bolsheviks were in a losing situation. The
Russian Whites were willing to recognize a Polish state within Polish ethnic boundaries.
1920 -Thousands of Soviet POWs die under miserable conditions while in Polish
captivity.
1934 – Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, four years prior to the Nazi-Soviet
non-aggression pact.
1938 – Polish, Nazi and Hungarian taking of CzechoSlovak territory, with the Soviet
call for a joint Soviet-West (particularly French) counter support for CzechoSlovakia
rebuffed.
According to German General Heinz Guderian and some other sources, the Soviets needed a
break on their WW II westward offensive. After the Stalingrad battle, the Nazis were still a
threat, as evidenced by the many casualties they were still able to inflict on the Red
Army. The Polish Home Army didn't initially seek to coordinate their uprising with the Red
Army. That only came after the Nazi counterattack in Warsaw.
Under Stalin, the USSR had some especially brutal aspects. Nevertheless, equating the USSR
with Nazi Germany is false. The former utilized a good number of Jews and Poles – something
the latter wouldn't tolerate. Between the two world wars, Poland left something to be desired
on the subject of respecting non-Polish minorities.
One can also go back to the early 1600s Polish subjugation of Russia, as well as the close
to 100,000 Poles who joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia.
Michael
Averko
is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst
and media critic. This article was
initially placed
at the Strategic Culture Foundation's website on August 6.
"... " Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in every server in the USA? " ..."
"... The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of idiocy their successors are now engaging in. ..."
"... Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York, just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly refused, they retaliated. ..."
"... Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help with the North Korea mess. ..."
"... Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over Russia – at least not military one. ..."
"... Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy. ..."
For a while already the Russian diplomats have been openly saying that their American
counterparts are
недоговороспособны
or "non-agreement capable". This all began under Obama, when Kerry flew to meet with Lavrov and
declared 'A', then flew back to Washington, DC and declared 'B'. Then there were the cases in
Syria when the US agreed to a deal only to break that very same deal in less than 24 hours.
That's when the Russians openly began to say that their US colleagues are rank amateurs who
lack even the basic professionalism to get anything done . Now the US has slipped even lower: the Russians speak of US "hellish buffoonery" and "stupid
thuggery".
Wow!
For the normally hyper-diplomatic Russians, this kind of language is absolutely unheard of,
this has never ever happened before. You could say that the Russians are naive, but they
believe that their diplomats should always be, well, diplomatic, and that public expressions of
disgust is just not something a diplomat does. Even more telling is rather than call the
Americans "evil" or "devious", they openly express their total contempt for them, calling them
stupid, incompetent, uneducated and their actions unlawful (read
Maria Zakharova's statement to that effect on Facebook ).
So let me explain what is happening here how the Russians interpreted the latest US thuggery
concerning the Russian Consulate in San Francisco and the Russian diplomatic annexes in
Washington and New York.
First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion of
US diplomatic personnel in Russia. That, by itself, is not the problem. The Russians understand
that Trump is a cornered and weak President, that he has to show how "tough" he is. Sure, they
smile, but they think that this is 'fair game'. The Russians also know that, as a country, the
USA cannot accept the biggest reduction in US diplomatic personnel in history without reacting.
Again, they don't necessarily like it, but they think that this is 'fair game'.
You know what really triggered the Russians off? The fact that the Americans gave them only
2 days to vacate the premises they would seize and that they organized some kind of bizarre
search operation. Let me immediately explain that this is not a case of ruffled feathers by the
Russians, not at all. But here is how they would think about it:
" Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the
premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to
inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in
hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving
that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in
every server in the USA? "
To a Russian, these questions can only have one answer: of
course not. So what is going on here? And then there is the only possible explanation left:
" We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they
lost Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified
to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even the
North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela refuses
to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out of the deal
they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto for Turkey.
Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts and the very best they can do is try to
feel good about illegally harassing our diplomatic personnel! Pathetic, lame, losers!
"
And they are 100% correct.
The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think
that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of
idiocy their successors are now engaging in.
This is also the end of Rex Tillerson. The poor man now has only two options left: resign
(that would be the honorable thing to do) or stay and become another castrated eunuch unable to
even deal with the likes of Nikki Haley, nevermind the North Koreans!
A "spokesperson" for the White House declared that Trump personally ordered the latest
thuggery. Okay, that means one of two thing: either Trump is so weak that he cannot even fire a
lying spokesperson or that he has now fallen so low as to order the "thug life" behavior of the
State Department. Either way, it is a disgrace.
This is also really scary. The combination of, on one hand, spineless subservience to the
Neocons with intellectual mediocrity, a gross lack of professionalism and the kind of petty
thuggery normally associated with street gangs and, on the other hand, nuclear weapons is very
scary. In the mean time, the other nuclear armed crazies have just declared that they have a
thermonuclear device which they apparently tested yesterday just to show their contempt for
Trump and his general minions. I don't think that they have a hydrogen bomb. I don't think that
they have a real ICBM. I don't even think that they have real (usable) nuclear warheads. But
what if I am wrong? What if they did get a lot of what they claim to have today – such as
rocket engines – from the Ukies?
In one corner, the Outstanding Leader , Brilliant Comrade, Young Master and Great Successor,
Kim Jong-un and on the other, The Donald, Grab them by the xxxxx and Make 'Merica Great, the
Grand Covfefe Donald Trump. Both armed with nukes.
Scary, scary shit. Really scary.
But even more scary and depressing is that the stronger man of the two is beyond any doubt
Kim Jong-un.
We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they lost
Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified
to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even
the North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela
refuses to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out
of the deal they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto
for Turkey. Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts
Such is the sad state of affairs in this country and the beginning of the end of the
American Empire (and none too soon). We squandered the potential for world peace when the
Soviets broke up. Instead of taking advantage of the peace windfall, the neocons redoubled
their efforts to dominate by projecting military power. We have been paying the price
since.
Meanwhile, the Chinese have been expanding their power projection peacefully by leveraging
their financial might. The gold-backed RMB is about to replace the petro-dollar. They have
been quietly building alliances across the globe using trade as the incentive, while we have
been killing and maiming people everywhere – and all in vain, apparently to win "hearts
and minds"!
Something that amused me a few days ago was a picture of a Chinese businessman in
Pakistan, escorted by two pro-government, two anti-government, and two rebel businessmen.
Apparently, this assured the safety of the Chinese businessman, even if his companions hated
each other. For our part, we had refused to do business there because we had not found a
means to unify these warring factions – and we are supposed to be the capitalists!
A day of reckoning is fast approaching, my fellow countrymen, and the price we will have
to pay is daunting. It may be a while before we can recover from the coming debacle, however,
I take solace in the following:
The accompanying pain will rewaken all our somnambulant citizenry to who and what has
brought us to this low point in our history, and they may unite to rout the Jewish banking
power that has resulted in our predicament.
We will no longer be able to borrow the trillions that fund our illegal wars across the
globe, and civilians can sleep peacefully once more.
Without our support, and the increasing unification of the countries in the ME (note Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, ) Israel and Saudi Arabia will stand alone, surrounded by angry nations
that have scores to settle. I doubt that those two mischief makers will survive another 5
years.
So, an imposed world peace is possible – even probable. With increasing Russian
influence in the Middle East and the sale of advanced weaponry to the emerging coalition of
Muslim countries, western invasions of these countries will become all but impossible.
Already, the Syrian airspace has been shut out from Israel and the US by Russia's command of
the skies, by S-300 and S-400 defenses and the Russian air force. It is only a matter of time
before Lebanon, too, enjoys the same protection, as will Iraq. Iran is already unassailable.
Turkey has started to distance itself from NATO, and is still smarting from the EU
rejection.
"First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion
of US diplomatic personnel in Russia."
Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it
started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York,
just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly
refused, they retaliated.
Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They
closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help
with the North Korea mess.
It seems whenever the USA threatens to destroy North Korea, their leader threatens to harm
the USA if that happens. Clearly, the North Korean leader is mad, at least those dicks think
so.
Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly
certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was
picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over
Russia – at least not military one.
I don't think that the exceptional ones believe that they can do it either, that train
left the station in the 90's, together with Boris. So now the exceptional ones are throwing
temper tantrums, because the bear doesn't want to lie down and play dead. They had their
chance for a while and they didn't really deserve it either.
The bear that they used to know and love in the 90's was a circus animal and that circus
has left town. The world is changing and if you think that the best protection against
hitting the iceberg is to blow the horn, for everybody to get out of your way because you are
too big to sink, you are heading straight to the bottom, only maybe with accompanying loud
noise from the horn, for which the world really doesn't care too much about.
American media show paranoia about Russia.
Trump Russia connections and election influence are nonsense.
Public sees the nonsense so media dropped the publicity.
Democratic Party will put on charm offensive to say they reject Antifa so to defuse
Republican Trump supporters.
If Democrats succeed they will regain many Congress seats in 2018 election.
Republicans need to put pressure on FBI to complete Clinton investigation.
That completion would clear air for better relations, restore public trust in government and
slap media to be more honest.
Republicans should be glad Russia is in Syria. Russia presence reduces American defense
expense.
Israel wants American presence.
Saudi Arabia wants presence.
People in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq want peace after years of American wars that
cause death and refugee humanitarian crisis.
American journalists except for Seymour Hersh are not allowed to tell Americans facts about
Middle East countries.
Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United
States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States
is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed
to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for
financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy.
Led by the BRICS, the rest of
the world is racing to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency with local
currencies and/or pseudo-currencies and the US-controlled international payment system with
block-chain technologies.
When the movement to de-status the dollar reaches critical mass, the United States will
officially be recognized as a bankrupt Third-World country wracked by inflation. It will no
longer have the luxury of recklessly printing petrodollars to pay its bills.
Not all is bleak. The collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is the sine qua non for
getting our Constitutional liberties back.
John Bolton wants to scrap the deal, provide supports to outsiders and insiders to foment
troubles against the regime and ban all commercial diplomatic and educational legal contacts
to the rest of the world . He wants to inform China and Russia only after the whole thing is over ( Iran has become I
guess Yemen!).
Why is he outside the high security prison or outside the administration?
Genesis of American relentless march to stupidity has been promoted and secured by
dimwit halfling midget like Bolton
Unfortunately Israel instead of keeping and maintaining the logical support from the
intellectual, visionary and moral people has relied on morons like these endangering itself
and USA . These morons wouldn't get a job as a third shift janitor in a slaughter house solely on
merits . They did what they could – race the bottom of the barrel of dishonesty because
that was their upbringing . It made them street smart without necessary IQ.
Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have
criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war
in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.
As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in
an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American.
Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes.
The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for
defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia",
but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them
out an "imperialist".
Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for
you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to
avoid debate.
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes."
That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal
empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).
You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at
the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic
nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's
position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in
certain areas he sits between two chairs).
The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know
it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made
important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such
as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.
Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even
collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost
all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal
globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism
demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal
ideology.
Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged
revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal
globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and
such.
The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the
mine here. It should collapse first.
The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the
neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve
as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as
neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief
History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml
Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter)
still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine,
but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to
neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned
herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost.
Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his
election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .
For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine
the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who
suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead
or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.
I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism
of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to
squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed
explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which
is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The
second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which
the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.
"... On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department. ..."
"... "One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European Union countries," ..."
"... "What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China? ..."
"... "The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic," ..."
"... "Russia collusion" ..."
"... "A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," ..."
"... "By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," ..."
"... because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth," ..."
"... "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State." ..."
On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco,
as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit
of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic
personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department.
While the decision will likely to ramp up tensions between the two countries, the reasons behind
it might have deeper roots, Rattansi believes.
"One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the
Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist
Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's
ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European
Union countries," Rattansi said, adding that this is all quite in line with the recent Trump
policy of heating up tensions worldwide and searching for enemies.
"What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and
see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China?
The aggressive US policy is being watched closely by the international community and the developing
countries, Rattansi said, stressing that previously purely diplomatic questions are now becoming
international flashpoints.
"The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign
military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are
on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic,"
Rattansi said.
Such behavior might be a desperate attempt to fix the internal problems in the US and help Trump
to beat the "Russia collusion" narrative, which has been plaguing his presidency.
"A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United
States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a
means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that
Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," Rattansi said.
"By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures
of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did
or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow
independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," Rattansi said.
It's quite hard to tell how far the tensions can go, as there will always be diplomatic relations
between Moscow and Washington, " because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth,"
Rattansi believes. "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or
indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon,
Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State."
"... The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that diplomatic mission. ..."
"... So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin, the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign state's property in its own country? ..."
"... Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that. ..."
"... I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example. ..."
"... We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to claim global dominion. ..."
"... And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now? And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through at the moment that is not being much reported on in America. ..."
The shutting and subsequent searches of Russia's diplomatic sites are a meaningless show of power
and domination by the US, which, however, could help push through controversial new intelligence
related legislation, believes Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer. It's part of efforts
to push through the Intelligence Authorization Act that would recognize actors, such as WikiLeaks,
as a "non-state hostile intelligence service," Machon told RT. Read more
'Illegal, meaningless
clownery': Russia condemns US searches of diplomatic property
RT: The State Department is saying the trade mission has been stripped of its immunity, that
it was essentially lifted when that consulate was shut down. The Vienna Convention which governs
consular relations says otherwise. Which do you think has got this right?
AM: The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And
any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that
diplomatic mission.
So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because
for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were
big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin,
the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this
in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot
imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign
state's property in its own country?
RT: It seems a strange decision in a sense – I mean really, all you need to do is conduct an
internet search... that this apparently goes against the Vienna Convention, and yet the US has gone
ahead with this. Why do you think they are doing this?
AM: I don't know, I really don't know why they are trying to do this now. Well, obviously the
tension has been ramping up. So Barack Obama in his last days as a president, at the end of last
year, actually sent home 35 diplomats from Russia, which sort of confirmed in the public mind globally
that Russia was involved in this bogus election hacking. And it just escalated from there.
So more sanctions being placed against Russia at the beginning of August. Russia was retaliating
by expelling more American diplomats and their associates. So it is just escalating from this point.
Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to
try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for
both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American
establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that.
RT: Why conduct a search of the premises? Is it just a pantomime, a kind of theatre?
AM: I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what
is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through
the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually
effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence
agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example.
Now we all know that Julian Assange has had a safe haven in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since
2012. We also know that in 2012, the UK government was looking at the idea that they might try and
raid the embassy against all international law, again to try to get him out to try to get him extradited.
So I'm wondering if this might be linked? There is some sort of meaningless parade of power by
raiding these consulates in America, Russian consulates in America. Because they are going to push
through this new law and then they can use it globally against anyone else they perceived to be an
enemy. And we know that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are perceived to be an American enemy. And they
want him back there, and they want to persecute him under some secret laws.
RT: And this deadline to vacate the premises, it is really short notice, isn't it? We saw that
the Russian gave the US a whole month to clear out. Do you think the US is trying to set a precedent
to let foreign nations know – don't get too comfortable, we could ask you to get out at any moment?
AM: Absolutely. We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente
with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it
has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic
fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to
claim global dominion.
And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now?
And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through
at the moment that is not being much reported on in America.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Did the US intelligence services know something, or this just a dirty provocation by neocons entrenched
in the State Department, who managed to coopt Rex Tillerson ?
Notable quotes:
"... If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules? ..."
"... Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity. Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission? ..."
"... Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it! ..."
Already furious over Washington's "
unprecedented aggressive action, " at the Russian consulate in San Francisco, Moscow has responded
with an official statement calling the "occupation" of diplomatic properties in the US a "blunt act
of hostility. "
As a reminder, Russian diplomats were denied access to the trade mission building despite it
being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity.
The
ministry called the planned "illegal inspection" of Russian diplomatic housing an " unprecedented
aggressive action ", which could be used by the U.S. special services for " anti-Russian provocations"
by the way of "planting compromised items ".
Searches of the Russian premises began on Saturday, after the US State Department ordered the
foreign ministry on August 31 to vacate the premises by September 2.
The FBI arrived in at least two vehicles to search the San Francisco Consulate. The minute the
deadline expired, agents entered the Russian-owned diplomatic property, which in 2016 alone issued
more than 16,000 tourist visas to American citizens.
Russian diplomats have posted photo and video evidence of the searches, which they call a "travesty
of justice."
And now,
as RT reports, the ministry said in a
statement on Sunday. " We regard the incident as a blunt act of hostility, a gross violation
of international law by Washington, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations,"
The ministry called upon the US "to come to their senses and immediately return Russian diplomatic
compounds ." "Otherwise, the US will be responsible for the continuing degradation of relations between
our countries , which largely affect global stability and international security," the statement
continued.
The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations forms the basis for diplomatic immunity and defines
the framework of relation between countries. It states that the premises of [any] mission "shall
be inviolable" and the "agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent
of the head of the mission." Moscow pointed out that all seized properties in New York, Washington,
and San Francisco have diplomatic immunity. "The US special services supported by armed police are
now 'hosting' the occupied buildings," the statement added.
"The US State Department is violating the Vienna Convention; this creates a bad precedent to international
diplomacy," Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, who served as a Greek ambassador in Canada in 2000-2004, told
RT. " I can't see the reason why it is happening. The relations between the US and Russia are not
bad. Some people in the US are trying to make [these relations] bad. Perhaps that was the goal all
along?
Brilliant precedent for the US to have set. Time to increase State's budget for protection
of its premises around the world. Also, every diplomatic mission in the US is now only too aware
that they are vulnerable to this type of action.
I'm in favor of resolving disputes through diplomacy and negotiations rather than violence
and barbarism. Good leadership works toward peace and prosperity. We have had the good fortune
of not having had a destructive World War in many decades. That time might be coming to an end.
Possibly, but in a world of tit for tat escalations, what happens if the Russians now evict
all US personnel from an American consulate, with zero notice, and show the world all the incriminating
evidence of attempted regime change they are bound to find?
If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer
any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other
countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules?
I think there might be consequences that the US no longer seems capable of recognizing: does
no one wargame these scenarios any more?
As a Brit, I can tell you that end-of-empire is a difficult period of readjustment, and it
takes quite a lot of soul-searching to get through unscathed.
What's the probable cause for the searches? Lifting diplomatic immunity from the Trade Mission
is not enough of a cause to conduct a search of the property.
Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's
employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity.
Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed
that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission?
This is beyond weird, it's fucking scary! If this can be done to foreign diplomats covered
by both the US Constitution (searches) and the Vienna Convention (diplomatic immunity), can you
imagine what they can do to us, working stiffs? Rule of Law my ass!
Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress
have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it!
As soon as I'm done typing, I'm gonna take a huge dump into my MAGA hats.
BTW If anybody wants their MAGA hats filled too, lemme know – first come, first served. ;-)
Here's the full text of
the Vienna Convention , but check out Article 22 and, especially, Article 45 below:
Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not
enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the
premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the
peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Article 45
If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or
temporarily recalled:
(a) The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises
of the mission, together with its property and archives;
(b) The sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with
its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;
(c) The sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals
to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.
these blackhearted bastards have no interest in good leadership, peace or any prosperity but
their own. we citizens have got to vote the war party out and the peace party in. break the hold
that the mossad likud zionists have on our government.
president trump, when do you start to assert some authority? left to their own devices you
see what the deep state will do. that the intelligentsia world wide is coming to understand this
better through the exposure of such clumsy false flags as russiagate and charlottesvile is of
valuable but limited consolation.
not being hillary clinton may not be enough in 2018 or 2020.
"Peace party"? Sounds like an oxymoron. People get into the government racket to take power
over others through violent means. Bad means lead to bad ends. And btw, trump has no authority.
The only true authority is personal sovereignty, everything else is a con game.
Of what peace party do you speak? The Russians are asking our leadership to come to their senses.
For that to happen, we would need someone in washington with an IQ over 20. Not going to happen.
With any luck Irma will strenghen to a cat 12 hurricane, hit washington & erase the swamp. We
need to start somewhere!
Russia Urges Washington To "Come To Their Senses" Over Consulate, Denounces "Blunt Act Of Hostility"
My response: The US Legislators should be ashamed of themselves. They have pushed America's executive
and law enforcement groups to do STUPID THINGS.
I am beginning to wonder if America can survive this CRAP much longer?
By the way, the DEMON released during Obama's 2nd term is called NERGAL who is a war god. You
can read about this DEMON below. I really hate where this is headed!!!
Of course, the Churches in America for the most part are absolutely CLUELESS when it comes
to understanding this stuff and impact on people's faith. I have truly come to believe that many
of our godless US legislators are being influence by NERGAL,
From your link:"First appearance, Conan the Barbarian" Great books, and very iffy film, but
hardly conclusive proof that demons are amoung us. It's fiction - made up scary stories to frighten
children and entertain adults. Are you frightened, or entertained?
Clearly, the ultimate goal behind the US State Department's illegal search of the Russian Embassy
was to provoke an escalatory response from the Russians.
As the collapse of the Amerikan Empire gains steam, we should anticipate further insults and
provocations to be levied against the Russian Federation by the despicable US Government.
After Benghazi who is stupid enough to be in any US mission anywhere? Except for the gay US
diplomatic corp in Norway that like little kids and get Hillary's protection.
Further, it makes one wonder; if the US Government has no respect for the privacy (sanctity
of one's dwelling; i.e private property) of a foregin nation, it does not bode well for the privacy
of a US citizen (in any venue).
If Trump ok'd this we can then assume that he's gone full retard - or his Joo master basterds
are dangling the orange haired marionette while his mad dog SecDef bloviates bellicose bullshyte
ad nauseam.
Yes, but for some strange reason the Russians and Putin in particular seem to believe in the
rule of Law. Yesterday's attitude from the US perspective.
It is not a belief in the rule of law (although that may also be true), it is the lack of backbone.
This is NOTHING compared to all the murdered diplomats, business leaders/Putin allies, downed
airliner, downed military transport with military music group, arrests of russians in the public
eye on "Trumped" up charges, sanctions against business leaders, sanctions against key businesses,
international arrest warrants so that business CEO's cannot travel outside Russia etc,
The current action is akin to an Arab taking off his shoe and slapping Putin across the face
with it on an international live news cast. Or Clint Eastwood in a cowboy flick spitting tobacco
into the face of a dirty .... The entire town is watching and knows the magnitude of insult.
Don't Poke The Bear!!! Again, well, not again, well better not again, please stop, please it's
making him cry, ....
Cue the photo opp, Putin riding a horse with no shirt, Putin fishing with no shirt, Putin staring
intensely during a diplomatic meeting/photo session,
The diplomat injuries in Cuba (IF they are real) may be. Should be. But why do so in Cuba,
why put Cuba out there, instead do so in a US friendly country. For that reason I feel it may
be a false story to begin negative PR against Cuba. I believe the travel restrictions were recently
put back in place by Trump.
I doubt the ships. The ships are so huge, move so slow, any competent officer in the control
structure should have been able to see it coming in the dark of night even. IMO Plus there are
more than one system looking for approaching objects.
The worst I ever witnessed during my time in the USMC was an LPD that ran aground in Australia.
The ship collisions are either a sign of gross incompetence (which is unlikely) or sabotage. I
tend to think it is the latter.
But, at this point, is he allowed to make any real decisions? He looks like he's been ring-fenced
by the NWO.
They'd kill him like Kennedy if they could, but at this point it would cause domestic war,
with little or no control on their part. So he lives, has his Twitter feed, and they run the country.
He is president, he can make decisions aplenty. He is making the decisions he wants to make,
they just do not match the lies he told during his campaign.
He is one of "them". But his fans will deflect blame to the point of claiming "they made him
do it/say it".
Russia tells Britain give back the Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back the Falkland Islands before
it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine. Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin
made the shocking remarks when responding to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security
council meeting in New York. ( Daily Express 4 Feb 2017)
Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be
returned' ?
Falklands -- Never Belonged to Argentina (single page):
Ok Bob, I will bite. First off, I do not want to hear any nonsense about how the British Parliament
is so concerned about the 500 fishermen and their families that live on those islands. If the
British government were concerned about its people, it would not be flooding your country with
terrorist Muslim to blow the little Britbobs to bits in London.
Britain is using those islands to claim the vast oilfields around them as "British" property.
How large are the oilfields... well... very large. Ok. So Britian is using a flag that they planted
in the ground 300 years ago as an excuse to rob oil from regions that are, by international law,
in the maritime zone of Argentina, and under Argentina's jurisdiction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/17/rockhoppers-falklands-oil...
Do not believe me? Then why is Argentina able, by international law, to prohibit the development
of the oilfields there? Why? Because these oilfields are on Argentina property. That England has
managed to cajole 2,600 fishermen on a few rocks in the Atlantic to live under British rule does
not give England the right to take a billion barrels of oil that rightfully belong, BY LAW, to
the people of Argentina.
If I can convince 2,600 of your good Muslim friends in England to vote to renounce English
rule, does that give Argentina the right to all of BPs holdings in the North Sea?
Typically British shit. Use any excuse to rob, steal, and pillage, and then call it "empire"
and our "right." You are full of shit Bob.
Russia's opinion does not matter and ZH readers do not care Bob - talk to the nobs in your
own foreign service about their policies toward Russia first.
What Vitaly Churkin said was that if Britain wished to criticise Russia over Crimea, THEN Britain
should give the Falklands to Argentina.
It was a justifiable complaint about double standards, not a definitive statement regarding
Russia's view of International Law.
Everybody understands that except you.
Every sane and normal person on the planet understands that Crimea had a fair referendum, (like
that which Britain depended on for its stance in the Falklands), which was necessitated by the
U.S. overthrowing a democratically elected Government. Western politicians who argue otherwise
merely make themselves look stupid subservient poodles of the Rogue State which the U.S. has now
become.
USA has just crossed the Rubicon. This is undoubtedly the most aggregious act of lawlessness
ever perpetrated by the USA in its history. The sanctity of embassies is the one common sense
rule and tradition that all civilized nations on earth have honored almost throughout history.
Sure, Iran invaded the US embassy, but don't forget how they were chastised and demonized for
it. Now it's the USA's turn to commit the same unthinkable crime.
The USA will never be trusted again, by any nation, for eternity. This is the last straw because
with this one act of supreme lawlessness the US has essentially isolated itself from the rest
of the world *forever*. Talk about shooting yourself in the face.
The rest of the world governments know the US is on its' last legs, period. A pit bull with
steroid rage, with a lethal case of rabies. The smart thing to do is sit back and let it run its'
course, while keeping a safe distance, but it'll be a few years before the dog loses his bite
and no way to keep it on a leash.
How would you run your government's foreign policy under this scenario? Knowing that the only
other options for safety are on the pitbull's kill list before it dies?
A thousand nukes on Russia or China will affect every country on this planet. There are a lot
of world leaders shitting their pants right now, and will for the next decade until the dog rolls
over and dies.
Would it not be best for Russia to at least kinda sorta be on our side with the NorK debacle?
We're giving Putin good reason to quietly support that chubby little dickhead that now has better
nukes and missiles.
What idiot would be on the side of someone who had just kicked them in the balls? The U.S.
needs friends to help deal with NK and it has none left. Why is NK only threatening the U.S.?
Could it perhaps be that only the US is threatening to attack NK? Questions far beyond the ability
of the U.S. State Dept
"... sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state. ..."
"... With a digital media, the Espionage Act could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C. ..."
The United States, uniquely among nations, believes that its writ runs all over
the world!and that it has a right to use its courts of law to seek retributive justice even in
situations that did not involve American citizens and occurred in a foreign land. No other
country sends its marshals overseas to forcibly detain fugitives from "justice." If the United
States is truly exceptional, it is no doubt due to its hubris in declaring itself to be the
final arbiter of what goes on all around the globe.
It seems that nearly every week Congress outdoes itself in passing bills that are intended
to pummel one foreign adversary or another. Russia and Iran have become particular favorites
with nary a dissenting voice when new sanctions are put in place, together with mechanisms to
ensure that a puissant chief executive shall have no ability to mitigate the punishment. And
sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation
that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state.
The latest
Senate Intelligence
Authorization Act (SB 1761) , which was released by the committee on August 18 when few
senators were in town, is in the nature of a routine document. It notably calls for "more" in
terms of both probing and revealing Russian spying and alleged aggression, but that was to be
expected due to the current panic over Moscow and its intentions. It will nevertheless almost
certainly become law even though few members of congress will actually bother to read any part
of it.
The bill has already been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee and will likely
go immediately to a vote in the full Senate when that body reconvenes after the August recess.
It will almost certainly be approved unanimously.
That anyone in the alternative media is paying any attention at all to what the bill says is
due to the last section in the document, numbered 623. It reads "SENSE OF CONGRESS ON
WIKILEAKS: It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks
resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be
treated as such a service by the United States."
Thanks for this very informative and important article Phil! Anyone who thinks this stops at
Wikileaks is foolishly infantile, and ignorant of what has been going on in the U.S. legal
system now for years. McCain, Graham, and their Democratic ally Joe Lieberman were
instrumental in getting Congress to pass Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA (now Public Law) which
provided for arbitrary military detention of anyone deemed a threat by the Commander in Chief
(FKA President).
How far that reached was shown in DOJ arguments in the case of Hedges v.
Obama, where it was argued that, of course, journalists and activists were subject to
military detention for their "expressive activities."
With a digital media, the Espionage Act
could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has
been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the
amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act
putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at
risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C.
It is interesting that on Sunday, Sept 3, 2017 there was no anti-Russian hysteria in US MSM anymore.
The flow of anti-Russian news just disappeared
Russia still need year to recover from Yeltsin carnage, so the best policy for Russia is just do
not react on this provocation. direct retaliation is counterproductive.
To the Russian Federation. If this faggot pedo of a U.S. Marine doesn't make it clear enough
at this point (
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-03/mattis-we-have-many-options-ach... ), after the banks
attempted to control your resources post-Soviet Union for 28 years using threats of war and well
"war" in your neighborhood, with paid for mercenaries in American $$$ to kill their own in places
like your Southern Caucus, Dagestan
They are desperate, bankrupt financially and without resources with no equal in human history...
And angry at their own worst choices going on the last 72 years and in need of a Hemorrhoid-ectomy
with one of these ( http://www.mashpedia.com/RS-28_Sarmat
)
TIMES UP!... GLOVES NEED TO COME OFF!... YOU GAVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT!... Now it's time to throw
them out of your Country for good and tell them YOU'RE READY FOR ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO NEXT!!!
I really wish the Russians would respond in kind but I suspect they have too much class. Link
for more videos of yet another treaty violation by the US government.
Wow, we really are heading for war with Russia. This is turning into America vs. World. It
never ends well for the country that tries to go to war against the rest of the world. There is
no sane reason to do this unless your desire is the destruction of America or a religious goal
of bringing about the end days.
We need to find these lunatics and traitors and we need to get rid of them before they poison
the Northern Hemisphere in blood and ash.
There is no 'finding them', RD. They operate in plain view. But they have the 'cattle' herded
in essentially any direction they so choose, by way of Fake News, Sports & entertainment and social-media
distraction. It takes a thinking electorate to see and identify their machinations. Which is why
they get so upset when thinking people speak...
Looks like the USA now playing into Chinese hands...
Notable quotes:
"... The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA. ..."
They can create alternative for payments with each other but it not alternative because they need
swift for interbank exchange with banks in swift system anyway.
Domestically it can be replaced with whatever homebrew solution and not issue, but it needed
for interneational tranasactions, this is the point.
And If you declared to be "cut" out of swift, it will not stop you for using it domestically
but swift system international banks will just stop any transactions with you by whatewer means.
All this talk is overhyped, will Germany pay for gas by trucks with cash or what. When we at
this point – cards is last of your problem. So swift will stay in any case. mir is old news
The idea was floated to cut Russia out of SWIFT, but it was quickly stepped on by the Americans
themselves. Cutting Iran out of SWIFT was a transparently self-interested move by the United States
to discourage an oil brokerage which avoided use of the US dollar as a benchmark – don't want
people getting ideas. Western states which got on board were sharply rebuked when the EU's General
Court ruled that
sanctioning two Iranian banks was illegal and that they must be compensated for their losses,
as no proof was offered that they were doing business on behalf of 'the regime'.
The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that,
but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving
US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against
the USA.
You could times that by ten in Russia's case. So they won't do it. But Russia becoming fiscally
more self-reliant and the international business community becoming more suspicious of American
manipulating are overall good things.
And two large countries agreeing to remove the US dollar from their bi-national trades is a
blow to dollar dominance.
Presumably a BRICS SWIFT could be developed to facilitate transactions among the members. It could
be part of the effort to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Presumably,
other countries can be added resulting in more of a global payment system.
As a total novice in
such matters, I can state with complete confidence it will be a likely next step in the growing
financial power of Russia, China and like-mined nations.
Does the USA tried to replay Iranian sanctions round on Russia? As Russia depends on the USA
companies for many technologies this can be painful.
Notable quotes:
"... That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran provided that they do not involve purchases. ..."
"... But with the American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more cautious approach. ..."
"... it stimulates a turn to Iranian alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system. ..."
"... the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened earlier this year a large sales center in Iran. ..."
U.S.-imposed economic sanctions often have been misdirected and counterproductive, but a new
sanctions-related development involving Iran is especially illustrative.
First, some background. Iran has been a favorite target of American politicians who use
sanctions as a vehicle for expressing disapproval for a regime, with little apparent thought
about the actual effects of the sanctions. Since the entering into force of the nuclear
agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which in the eyes of most
governments successfully resolved the issue of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, the United
States has been alone among major powers in continuing to sanction Iran. The sanctions that the
United States has piled on Iran for years have become so extensive and complex, and the
penalties for violation so severe, that many American companies have erred on the side of
caution by forgoing business opportunities in Iran even more than is legally required. The fear
of God, or rather of the U.S. Treasury Department, has made them wary of inadvertently stepping
across some unclear line.
The new development is that Apple is
attempting to shut down
apps developed by Iranians
for use on iPhones inside Iran. The sanctions prohibit Apple
from selling its phones in Iran, but millions of the popular devices have been smuggled into
the country from places such as Dubai and Hong Kong. Hence the market for apps that Iranians
find useful, such as an Uber-like ride-hailing service known as Snapp. Apple is removing
Iranian-developed apps, including Snapp, from its App Stores. The company issued a message to
Iranian developers in which it attributed the move to "U.S. sanctions regulations".
That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google
taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android
phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran
provided that they do not involve purchases.
Maybe Google is on firm legal ground.
But with the
American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a
resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few
experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more
cautious approach.
Impeding the full use by Iranians of their iPhones does absolutely nothing to weaken the
Iranian regime, to punish it for behavior we don't like, to deter it from future behavior we
might not like, or to accomplish any other ostensible purpose of the sanctions that have led
Apple to do what it is doing. It only takes ordinary Iranians farther away from fully enjoying
an American product with an American operating system, and
it stimulates a turn to Iranian
alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system.
As with many of the U.S.
sanctions,
the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that
are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the
economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
An instructive irony of Apple removing apps that ordinary Iranians use is that recently
Apple removed apps that ordinary Chinese were using to circumvent government censorship and
gain use to non-Chinese internet sites. The Iranian regime, like the Chinese regime, blocks the
use of some popular Western-based social media (although the Iranian telecommunications
minister has hinted that some of these restrictions may be dropped).
The difference is that in one case Apple is responding to pressure from the Chinese
government, while in the other case it is responding to pressure not from Iran but instead from
the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is
prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened
earlier this year a large sales center in Iran.
improve relations ," this doesn't seem sincere expectation. Rather, the State Department's
comments seem more interested in trying to shift the blame.
The State Department credited itself for only closing one consulate and two annexes, saying
they "have chosen to allow the Russian government to maintain some of its annexes" to try to keep
the situation getting worse.
One official was quoted as saying that "it is our hope that the Russians will recognize that
they were the ones who started the discussion" on facility closures, citing the recent US loss
of a warehouse in Moscow and a vacation house.
Absent in all official US comments were the December 2016 US moves to expel Russian diplomats
and seize two vacation houses. While Russia couched their closures as retaliation for that, US
officials are choosing to ignore December and present today's moves as retaliation for Russia's
closures.
The comments about hoping for better relations don't appear realistic, as the closure of a
consulate is a major step forward in escalation of tensions, and will almost certain oblige Russia
to take further moves. These tit-for-tat measures show no sign of ending any time soon. The best
we can hope is that it doesn't further escalate.
"... "We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation by planting compromising items," the statement also said. ..."
BREAKING: Moscow summons US Ambassador to submit protest note over diplomatic downsizing
September 2, 2017 - Fort Russ News - Paul Antonopoulos
Russia has call for the deputy chief of mission of the US Embassy in Moscow, Anthony F. Godfrey,
to submit a protest letter over US plans to search the Russian trade mission in Washington, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement just made moments ago.
The statement revealed that Russian diplomats have been denied access to the trade mission
building despite being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity. Because of this gross
violation of diplomatic immunity, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that:
"The US authorities must stop the gross violations of international law and refuse to encroach
on the immunity of Russia's diplomatic institutions. Otherwise we reserve the right to reciprocate
on the basis of reciprocity."
"We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of
Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an
aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation
by planting compromising items," the statement also said.
This was triggered when days ago the US ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in San
Francisco and the downsizing of its diplomatic presence in New York City and Washington DC.
The US has ordered Russia
to close diplomatic offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington within the next two days,
in the latest round of punitive measures between the two countries that began at the end of last
year.
The secretary of state Rex Tillerson spoke to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in a phone
call on Thursday. Lavrov said Moscow "regrets an escalation of tension not initiated by Russia",
according to the
state-run RT news
channel . A senior US administration official said the call was "professional" and that Lavrov
"agreed to the sentiment that it was important to find a way to improve our relations".
No Russians will be expelled in this latest move, and US officials said staff at the offices affected
could be reassigned to other Russian diplomatic missions around the country. But they made it clear
that the buildings had to be vacated and would have to be sold or have their leases ended.
"... At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income. ..."
"... NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake? ..."
Total amount of capital that private Russian citizens have taken offshore exceeds one
trillion dollars (trillion dollars = 1,000 billion dollars):
https://lenta.ru/news/2017/08/23/offshore/
This is three times more than the level of Russia's foreign exchange reserves.
Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like this. Take this kind of money out of Finland
and we would have nothing.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
August 2017
In the lenta.ru article the following is pointed out:
В настоящее
время перекос в
распределении
доходов в
России
находится на
уровне США -- 1
процент
граждан
получают 20-25
процентов всех
доходов в
стране.
Currently, the imbalance in income distribution in Russia is at the level of the USA: 1
percent of the population receives 20-25 percent of all income in the country.
Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like that in the USA!
More so than Russia. Stealing this kind of wealth and taking it offshore would not be
possible here. And Finnish elite is a tad more patriotic than Russian.
Well, where exactly do these Russians invest their money? Do you know if the countries that
receive this money are known tax havens? Is all or most of the money going into family trust
funds or going into accounts based in countries where taxation of income or profit is known
to be lower than in Russia?
Also you can't assume that because these people are sending the money out of Russia, that
it was all stolen. For all you know, they could be sending the money out because they are not
confident that Russian financial markets are stable enough or that the Central Bank is
pursuing policies that would allow them to invest in enterprises or funds in Russia.
Khotin owns stock in various companies within and outside Russia either directly or
indirectly through other companies. If he has a stake in Kuwait Energy, is that evidence of
guilt on his part? Where did the money come from, that he could buy shares in an energy
company? Who says that Russian individuals and companies may not invest their after-tax
profits in companies outside Russia?
Look at this billionaire's Wikipedia entry – aaargh, this David Iakobashvili fellow
invests money stolen I mean, earned in Russia in philanthropic causes in Georgia!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Iakobashvili
At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow
multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands
and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to
prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income.
NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing
profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake?
THE NEW NWO AND RUSSIA.
This is very much worth reading
. The authors argue that in the coming (well, already here)
rivalry between the American maritime power and the Chinese land power, Russia is the swing
player that can hand victory to one or the other: "So logic says that the US should be very
nice to Russia and seek to establish some kind of military alliance". Well, logic's voice isn't
loud enough for the US Congress to hear. Also interesting is their discussion of Germany's
choices and the important role Saudi Arabia could play if it changes protectors again. (
I too
wondered this two years ago.
USSR DEBT. With a payment to Bosnia, Moscow
has paid off the last of the debt it
inherited from the USSR
. When an earlier agreement that the 15 would divide the debt fell
apart, Moscow took responsibility for all of it in return for USSR assets abroad. It did this
despite the fact that its creditors insisted on repayment while many of its debtors could not
pay. The total was about USD80 billion and many debts to it were forgiven. I well remember how
glad we all were that it took responsibility for the debts as well as the other leftovers:
weaponry outside, nuclear weapons and its guarantee of Russian citizenship to any Soviet
citizen who wasn't automatically given citizenship where he lived. It was only later that the
last three were rebranded as evidence of imperialistic intentions.
DEMOGRAPHICS. There has been a
small net decline in
Russia's population
this year after several years of growth. We will see if this is a bump
or a trend. (Although Karlin, who is much more knowledgeable than I, predicted a return to
"normal" rates
two and a half years
ago
.)
VISA RETALIATION.
My take
: I believe
Moscow is ready to follow Washington right down to zero representation is that's where it goes.
But, if the Russiagate bubble bursts (probably the most severe blow is
the exposure of the Guccifer 2.0 fake by VIPS
) then the
original
pretext
will burst too and things can get back to normal.
MAKING WATER RUN UP HILL. Lithuania is getting
LNG from the
USA
and
Ukraine coal from
the USA
. More expensive but supposedly for security. Well, whatever: if they want to pay
more, let them. Of course in all likelihood they will "pay" with IMF or EU loans. Payback's a
problem for later.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge : very plausible given that there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even the WaPo seems to be backing off – and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC judges.) ..."
"... Do you think Putin is messing with their minds? ..."
The effect of anti-Russia sanctions since 2014 is that
Europe has likely
suffered
more than Russia and certainly more than the USA; Russia has used the sanctions
(and its counter sanctions) to increase domestic production (see below) whereas Europe has just
lost markets. Well, we'll find out whether Europe
has the feet to stand on that Merkel thinks it has
.
Another thing to
find out is whether Moscow decides it's had enough – as
Medvedev suggests
– and that it's time to make its "partner" hurt. (Some responses: no more rocket engines,
no overflights, no supply line to Afghanistan, no US NGOs, no Russian investments in USA, no
accepting US dollars in trade.
But Putin & Co will probably come up with something cleverer
than anything I can think of). They will be a drag on Washington's foreign policy for decades:
"never recognize" Crimea in Russia (
257.a.3
)? well, they're going to have to some time.
I am collecting
negative reactions on my site.
They're another step on the downward trajectory of the USA:
they will drive a wedge between Europe and the USA; push Russia closer to China; may even lead
to a rapprochement between Europe and Russia.
But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in
the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its
allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that
Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge
: very plausible given that
there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even
the WaPo seems to be backing off
– and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC
judges.)
SANCTIONS EFFECT.
Russian
statistics tell us that the share of imports in the retail sector is 36%, the lowest since the
2008 crash
. Food imports are down to 24% from 34% in 2014. The percentage of imports in
various categories: cereals 0.2%; sausages 1.6%; flour 1.8%; poultry 4.1%; pork 8.3%.
Gessen
will be glad that cheese imports are 27.7%, but sad that they're down from 48.4%. Sanctions
work: just not the way the US Congress thinks they do. Altogether, it's probably fair to say
that Russia is now self-sufficient in food. And production is only going to become bigger: the
potential of Russian agriculture has never been tapped; serfdom, the village mir and
collectivisation were not very productive.
CORRUPTION. The
trial of the
former Minister of Economic Development has begun
. He was caught red-handed taking a bribe
they say. I believe he is the highest ranking official yet to be charged: some –
Luzhkov
and
Serdyukov
spring to mind
– have been accused of things and been fired, but no charges laid.
We are
told
that 45,000 people have been convicted of corruption crimes over the last three and a
half years and about 350 officials have been fired this year and the same last year.
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe
to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist,
inter-imperialist contention.
The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international
misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion
of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security
Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime
change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder.
"We came, we saw, he died!")
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam,
against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of
the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable
(whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly
in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of
Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the
U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated
as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has
fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.
Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory
(and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June
that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has
shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."
But where will this power lead?
The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market."
But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to
be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut
the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own
profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative
markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable
than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production
capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional
hydrocarbons."
The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election
meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian
actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary
Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine
into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).
The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the
Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin
is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between
Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between
Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump
outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature
for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In
other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a
new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view
of the U.S.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned
the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring:
"we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which
take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and
simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The
foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on
the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan
effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire,
is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat
to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates
freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)
U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find
Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with
traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when
the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large
part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.
Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely
tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues." No bromance here.
Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream
media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that
"there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."
"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself.
He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile
that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands
die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that
to my face."
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire.
that the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them.
Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His
caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it
clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and
covert means.
As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of
restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will
play a big part in post-Putin politics.
If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links
(via
proxies like ISIS)
, the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain
much support.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were
shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.
Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))
Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is
idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to
import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions
will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if
the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra
gas to Asia anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.
Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement,
which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing,
including I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.
Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its
discretion. If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he
would be overridden for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely.
From there, it's completely realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good
many Republicans would go along with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*
I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that
people read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully.
But in his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the
Supreme Court if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements
of the sanctions bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.
It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it
open to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand
now - while the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the
sanctions both fail and help to tear the EU apart.
* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece
agrees that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support
impeachment, and adds:
"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's
term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real'
Republican in his place."
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was
entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."
Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the
meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm
not sure if such a term for his style even exists.
But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I
don't see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing
the legislation makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines
being drawn in the sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision
making these days is murky at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving'
as being part of his character. Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.
And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one
navigate the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders
are out to destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get
their way so they are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they
are wielding when they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I
haven't read the vote tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted
against it).
My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction
and maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v
Trump/Pence.
Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an
option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their
construction. At least I think it's Boing.
If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and
cry about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an
excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the
constitutionality of the bill.
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I
immediately thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S.
government is in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great
deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands
from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S.
should be warned a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just
such an event.
thanks b.. i am super busy so not able to comment and read the comments like i would like,
but i am sure someone else has already articulated what i am going to say... is it a failure
of strategy, or is it a continuation of the same strategy to make war for financial reasons
on others? seems like a combo of both at this point.. either way, when do the western puppets
wake up, or is that not going to happen, as they are a part of this same financial ponzi
scheme as well?
Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of
government very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto,
and a veto would only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation
of powers. As matters stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.
If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and
bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence
supporting legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.
He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due
the impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute
and you've got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll
numbers sinking). On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts
instead of caving and earning the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect
he might have gotten a little respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept.
I agree with b.
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will
lead to?
When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in
mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous
delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The
actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing:
war.
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing;
I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN
PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with
notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this
latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the
two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both
houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from
Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your
constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job description?? Now I have to
fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has
already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3
billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that every single
current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC
interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him
the opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I
will contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well.
There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the
North Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash
attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis
of Evil" or "the Free World"
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number
of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has
anyone else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military
power block to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people
see the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen
will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid
of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?
Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing
- gruel for the knuckleheads.
There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real
warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would
love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one
possibility he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then
upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat
from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote
was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.
For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted
links to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all
together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool
realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never
will--it will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing
Returns is finally laying the lumber to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked
imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his American Century was
being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.
>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining
office. Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate
debates.
>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that
these populists were phonies but Trump is the real deal?
>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more
importantly, Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.
>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election.
The media dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had
a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see:
NYPost:
Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever
despite having every advantage.
>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so
close to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served
Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama
was foreign born.
>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?
>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not
seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's
health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.
>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First'
and/or fuel the scaremongering over Russia:
> The missile attack on Syria
(despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria
in 2013)
and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);
> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after
he did;
> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly
attacking Sessions; etc.
> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the
election;
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best
way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a
few changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from
the new sanctions.
I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough,
nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get
hit, then something may happen.
With Trumps amendments? to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master
rather than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.
Berry Friesen@43 -
"...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his
veto..."
Depends. From Mercouris:
With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say
that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the
integrity of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was
therefore guilty of committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against
Russia, the US's main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the
US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.
Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves
the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical
atmosphere the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional
sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept
this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.
This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the
thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris
points out, the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is
entirely up to
Congress
, not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand
up in US courts and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.
An impeachment resolution
HR 438
has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing
Trump's firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's
sponsor acknowledges it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be
amended with additional articles of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one
assumes all Democrat lower house representatives vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will
only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it. It has not been submitted to a vote, but
will when the representatives think the charges are numerous and strong enough that 2/3rds of
the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily a Democrat vs. Republican
fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a much more obedient
replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous vote for the
sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching:
"Trump must go!
They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks
credible and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding
the veto as the
only thing
Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment
against Trump. The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of
manufactured evidence to confuse the little people and raise doubt.
FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with
Russia. It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a
side-effect) blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to
impeach Trump. If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!
If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an
indictment (perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges
are true. In any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which
will be used to strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with
elections. A veto to the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not
'prove' an impeachable offense by itself.
An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to
interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if
they prove the thesis by law or logic.
The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement
lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove
sufficient. They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only
'evidence' that will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking...
Trump Must Go!
I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make
much difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more
than, say, a microsecond or two.
1. Veto and explain why to the public: partisan politics / Russian witchhunt / etc.
2. Pocket veto and appeal to the public in the weeks before Congress returns from its
summer recess. Congress-critters would then have to explain why they disagree with the
President.
3. Veto/pocket veto and issue an executive order that imposes sanctions but doesn't tie
his hands. If Congress re-enacted, it would ONLY be to unconstitutionally impinge on
Presidential authority.
(This strategy was suggested by someone at ZeroHedge.)
4. A combination of 2+3: first 2, then 3 if Congress decided to re-enact.
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he
only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed
in MSM.
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear
warhead. And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be
bothered to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one
with the clear, open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which
will forever stand as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if
needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible
move for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic
ties. It's probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a
third of Europe to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier
when that kind of moves would've been far less costly.
I realize I never did acknowledge your various comments in that thread - I was grateful,
and should have said so. I copied them all to a note for my reference, and thank you for
offering all of that material. Time is my great enemy and I'm something of a hit-and-run
poster in threads - but this one I did come back to scan, as I do increasingly with most of
these MoA threads nowadays, it seems...
By the way, I read - and value - all of your comments here that I see.
It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out
laughing. Thank you.
On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The
country may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in
suitable hands.
I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys.
This business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing,
by and large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me,
it's still a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of
something real that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.
I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the
paradigm that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual
persons that comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it
today.
I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their
discussions verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified
- it would not have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of
negotiation came from the people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination
of interests.
I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from
the beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves,
we sovereign individuals. Story not finished yet.
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone
involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a
Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC
staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC
staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made
to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from
swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty
good.
@22 fast freddy..good comments too, but your link doesn't work.
@38 Wwinsti.. i think what blues is trying to say is if you don't have any engineers, or
manufacturing capabilities which have been in a state of decline for many years, all the talk
of reverse engineering is just that - talk and nothing more..
@48 frances.. it is funny that russian pawn claptrap was given such a regular viewing in
the msm, that some now seem to truly believe it.. i am still waiting for the tooth ferry
myself.. let me know if anyone sees it, lol...
@50 goldhoarder. yeah, as b notes - if the usa was trying to throw russia and china
together - they are going about it the right way!!!
@56 karlof1.. good article.. thanks!
@59 paveway quote "This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will
eventually support the thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with
elections." as i mentioned earlier the usa is fucked in the head.. but maybe a better way to
put it is in an opening quote in naomi kleins latest book (2017) called "NO is not enough"...
"I'm not looking to overthrow the American government, the corporate state already has." John
Trudell - Santee Dakota activist, artist, and poet ( 1946-2015) in the msm we trust, lol -
it's in the national anthem... i like how you ended your post, lol..
@62 clueless joe.. i had heard they cleaned up the bill to make it more palatable for
europe.. i don't know if that is true, but i read that somewhere.. they put some usa #1
export sugar on top of the large dose of arsenic.. lets see if the poodles go for it,
lol...
@64 karlof1.. sounds about right.. i guess the leader was a bit too democratic for his own
good, lol.. clearly he was doing something right for the cia to want to get rid of him..
@67 grieved.. thanks.. i use the lol way too much and clearly i am mostly talking to
myself and laughing at my own stupid jokes that most people find boring..i admire your
optimism and the fact you don't fall prey to cynicism nearly as quickly as me! i hope you are
right, but man we are at a tipping point here in a major way circa 2017... i don't see things
moving forward all that favourably but i do admire those who can stay positive in spite of
what we are seeing here..
@68 debs is dead.. thanks.. too many pop ups from fp, so i'm closing the window.. sounds
about right though.. to quote the pilger article that karlof1 left @64 - "A coup against the
man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but
because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia." msm verses trump...
msm is winning, lol... trump is going to have to pick up the twitter pace or he is in deep
doo doo, or deep 6'd by the deep state.. mcmaster - what a disgrace to the scottish clan this
man is.. he needs to change his friggin nam...
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims
he's cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by
TimesofIsrael
despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They
see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees
McMaster as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated
here
. Their association with the
Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually
portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an
article
that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins
views in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's
presidency, including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo
characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts
that globalists and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set
of recommendations, arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."
I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the
debate about who or why.
The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law
enforcement and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected
terrorists into the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or
investigation. This is all (according to him) being driven by political correctness and the
globalist's/Soros' 'open borders' scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep
hearing the same thing from European nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a
blind eye to terrorism suspects entering their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy
theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do say so myself.
Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and
everyone is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be
in danger of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War
version 2.0 were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially,
"We'll try again
in Afghanistan, but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"
I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just
skeptical of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically
choked out. Incometence - sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I
guess...
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.
What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?
Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream?
I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which will underpin Turkeys economic
developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria,
and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.
As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a
unified EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves
attacking Russia.
But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost far
far more than Russian gas.
Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the
transit fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and
who will do that.
Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being
built and when that is due to be operational
All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything
should kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia
were unjust and have not been proved.
The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of
attacks which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.
P S - I disagree with b that medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want
him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal
disappointment in Trump.
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and
one, multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the
current shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt
"reset" of some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever
is going to happen will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.
What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the
rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own
deathly dissonance?
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist
pressures that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the
backbone to stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid
warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest
critique of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the
pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of the Russian government. For him to make such a
statement must have been either as a plea or warning ("Dude! You're killing your own agents
over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an indication that even the lapdogs in
Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's sovereign Russia camp and
make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for the last few years.
Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening of Putin's
hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital to kick
out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up to
the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in
our hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign
nation based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise
missiles into another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh
yeah, for other unproven absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its
infinite wisdom to presumably restore good sense and order to perfidious political
shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would be the same Supreme Court that protects
scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
?).
by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories
about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an
"automated" error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into
"Mordor". Other erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name
of Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the
fictional realm in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows.
The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when
users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any
'evil' intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works
"without the intervention of human translators". Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was
fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash
Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the
messenger.
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is
no puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop"
attitude designed to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war
voters, Obama-style, of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough"
against his will, sob).
Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump
has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?
https://www.rt.com/politics/398429-trump-is-no-puppet-russian/
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to
33% (below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each
other, and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds
American standards, polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the
current foreign minister made an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among
others, he stated that while Poland is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this
time it is not competitive with Russian natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at
least double of those in Europe, but liquifying, transporting highly explosive cargo etc.
adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American Patriots is needed, but not finalized
(the government talks a lot about expanding the military to face the Russian threat, but they
are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got a big fleet of armored limousines
for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).
Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and
given that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms
race. I guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American
sanctions. The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU
bureacracy", but what alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S.
liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate
target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the
Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to
an independent German energy policy. " b
Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked,
compressed, shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon
footprint comparisons online.
if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on
this issue....
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with
sanctions is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now,
is just a punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that
somehow those two leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to
US misleaders. That, it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a
total creep. Both parties exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals,
even more disgusting. When called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the
ring as commanded.
A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the
way to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned
that statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC
fine print, which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.
Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then
next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and
treachery!
A system of represntative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of
ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the
whole body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the
rich didn't like this system at all.
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A
velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await
conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than
later.
Sanctions, but US still buying billions of dollars worth (including baksheesh) of rocket
engines and screwing around with international space station boondoggle (million dollar
toilet seats, hammers and widgets). And more baksheesh.
Try to google search a fixed price on one Russian rocket engine.
The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through
the Middle East in the 21st century
3. No Qatari offer to Damascus
The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing
an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around
statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting
between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.
Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah
bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at
Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)
The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland
pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian
ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
But Dargin says:
"There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached
Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur,
rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."
Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and
political ties between Doha and Damascus.
'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the
Qataris were fighting for a pipeline'
- Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report
Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the
Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple
were also being portrayed as personal friends."
Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for
supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels
was over a future pipeline.
Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we
don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a
pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."
4. The Moscow-Tehran connection
Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline,
also known as the Islamic Pipeline.
Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were
pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but
until July 2011, there was no formal
signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the
whole country.
"
While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities.
First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the
bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international
sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.
Second,
Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas.
Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit
gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The
sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.
It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even
more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack
NK.
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters
to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years
the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation.
Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that
almost never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven,
not here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced'
members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval
rating.
Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the
populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality
were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of
great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a
stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was
finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued
that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality
. Two works
providing info on this issue are
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in
the United States
and
People of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American
Civilization
, although there are many others.
Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A
new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current
institutions will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0
using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a
classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law
must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice
and thus its destruction.
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard
as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US
working constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less
conflict. As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for
a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and
self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer
relations between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article.
Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions
are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer
Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the
EU.
@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself
on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or
make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger
than POUTS. Then - the second option.
17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one
Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human
rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four
times as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the
two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the
world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than
POUTS. Then - the second option.
Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon,
not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't
know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show
and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities
and 'think tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal
with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're
trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after
all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and
probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?
In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the
lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's
told!
Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs
little from the use of the terms "Conspiracy Theory," Conspiracy Theorist," and
"Revisionist"--all are used in an attempt to degrade the credibility of an individual or
organization. A priori, everyone aside from First Peoples is an Internationalist as commerce
with other nations of the world isn't optional--it's mandatory, thus the phrase within the
Declaration about telling the world why. Rather, Isolationist is used to tar someone against
Imperialism, the best examples being the very heated debate during the 1930s over the various
Neutrality Acts when the hoi polloi last had some vestige of control over the federal
government. (Pacifist was also a derogatory term used then for similar reasons.) Did Trump
say he would close US borders to one and all--people, goods, financial instruments? No, of
course not; so, he cannot be labeled an Isolationist. Now, is he what's known as a Nativist
promoting an America First Nativism? During his campaign, he did use rhetoric of that sort,
but his actions in office don't provide confirmation. (The 1932 presidential election also
gives an excellent example of how the terms Internationalist and Isolationist are used
politically, with FDR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his Internationalism thanks to the
divisive League of Nations debate after WW1.)
Essentially, to be an informed citizen of almost any nation, one needs the equivalent of a
PhD in their national and world history, with minors in philosophy, anthropology and
economics, which is why the citizenry seems so ill-informed--they are!--and easily led by the
nose.
"... The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later. ..."
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes
a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM |
61
It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out laughing.
Thank you.
On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The country
may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in suitable hands.
I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys. This
business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing, by and
large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me, it's still
a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of something real
that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.
I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the paradigm
that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual persons that
comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it today.
I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their discussions
verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified - it would not
have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of negotiation came from the
people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination of interests.
I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from the
beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves, we sovereign
individuals. Story not finished yet.
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims he's
cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by
TimesofIsrael despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They
see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees McMaster
as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated
here . Their association
with the Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually
portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an
article that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins views
in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's presidency,
including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo characterizes the
Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists and
Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set of recommendations,
arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."
I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the debate
about who or why.
The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law enforcement
and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected terrorists into
the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or investigation. This is all
(according to him) being driven by political correctness and the globalist's/Soros' 'open borders'
scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep hearing the same thing from European
nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a blind eye to terrorism suspects entering
their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do
say so myself.
Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and everyone
is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be in danger
of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War version 2.0
were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially, "We'll try again in Afghanistan,
but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"
I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just skeptical
of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically choked out. Incometence
- sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I guess...
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.
What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?
Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream? I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which
will underpin Turkeys economic developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern
Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria, and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.
As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a unified
EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves attacking
Russia. But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost
far far more than Russian gas.
Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the transit
fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and who will do
that.
Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being built
and when that is due to be operational
All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything should
kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia were unjust
and have not been proved.
The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of attacks
which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.
P S - I disagree with b that Medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want
him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal disappointment
in Trump.
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and one,
multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the current
shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt "reset" of
some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever is going to happen
will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.
What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the
rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own deathly
dissonance?
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist pressures
that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the backbone to
stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid
warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest critique
of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of
the Russian government. For him to make such a statement must have been either as a plea or warning
("Dude! You're killing your own agents over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an
indication that even the lapdogs in Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's
sovereign Russia camp and make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for
the last few years. Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening
of Putin's hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital
to kick out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up
to the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in our
hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign nation
based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise missiles into
another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh yeah, for other unproven
absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom to presumably
restore good sense and order to perfidious political shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would
be the same Supreme Court that protects scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember
Exxon Shipping
Co. v. Baker ?).
by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about
Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an "automated"
error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into "Mordor". Other
erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name of Russia's foreign
minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google
said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian
[sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any 'evil' intent, telling The Guardian
in a written statement that its translator tool works "without the intervention of human translators".
Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes,
many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided
to take a shot at the messenger.
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is no
puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop" attitude designed
to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war voters, Obama-style,
of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough" against his will, sob).
Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump
has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to 33%
(below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each other,
and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds American standards,
polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the current foreign minister made
an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among others, he stated that while Poland
is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this time it is not competitive with Russian
natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at least double of those in Europe, but liquifying,
transporting highly explosive cargo etc. adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American
Patriots is needed, but not finalized (the government talks a lot about expanding the military
to face the Russian threat, but they are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got
a big fleet of armored limousines for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).
Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and given
that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms race. I
guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American sanctions.
The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU bureacracy", but what
alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?
I agree with the post at 78. Trump is all in with these sanctions -- he is just trying to fool
his base. Does anyone really think he did not know the bill was being drafted - Paul Ryan and
Priebus would have told him. An article on antiwar.com states the following.
Tillerson says he's told Russia that US will respond by Sept. 1 to Moscow's move to expel US
diplomats. They want an escalation and Cold War
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied
natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential
conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy.
" b
Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked, compressed,
shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon footprint comparisons
online.
if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on this
issue....
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with sanctions
is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now, is just a
punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that somehow those two
leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to US misleaders. That,
it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a total creep. Both parties
exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals, even more disgusting. When
called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the ring as commanded.
A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the way
to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned that
statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC fine print,
which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.
Paul @ 83
Putin has not commented on the sanctions. Medvedev did. As for North Korea - that's a separate
topic all together which I am sure b will cover.
Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then
next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and treachery!
A system of representative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of
ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the whole
body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the rich didn't
like this system at all.
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill.
A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await
conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later.
The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through
the Middle East in the 21st century
3. No Qatari offer to Damascus
The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing
an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around statements
by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting between Russia's
President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.
Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah bint
Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at Doha airport
in January 2010 (AFP)
The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland
pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian
ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
But Dargin says: "There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached
Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur,
rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."
Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and
political ties between Doha and Damascus.
'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the
Qataris were fighting for a pipeline' - Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report
Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris
were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple were also
being portrayed as personal friends."
Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for supporting
"terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels was over a future
pipeline.
Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we
don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline;
that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."
4. The Moscow-Tehran connection
Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline, also
known as the Islamic Pipeline.
Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were pre-contract
memorandums of understanding, but until July 2011, there was no formal signing [between
Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the whole country.
"
While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities. First,
the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the bill,
particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international sanctions, as is Syria,
since 2011.
Second, Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas. Sanctions
mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit gas from the
South Pars field that borders Qatar.
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The sanctions
are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.
It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even more
difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack NK.
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters
will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost
never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not
here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members
of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.
Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the populous
is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality were those people
in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of great importance when
we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a stake in the process and
compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was finally deemed to have equal
rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued that full equality under the
law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in With Liberty and Justice for
Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality . Two works providing info on this issue are
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States and People
of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization , although there are
many others.
Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A new
document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current institutions
will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian
principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool.
But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw
US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as
portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working
constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict. As he says,
"The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily
and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations
between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I
am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are
the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran
alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.
@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself
on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make
the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS.
Then - the second option.
AT #88:
Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc
17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one
Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human
rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four times
as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
/div
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the
two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the
world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS.
Then - the second option.
Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not
one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know
prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses
structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think
tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without
giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him
and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after all, a billionaire capitalist,
who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show
me a big capitalist who hasn't?
In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights
are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!
"... These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads.
After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression
against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why
does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author)
..."
"... It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the
"biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia. The
Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar ..."
"... As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets
, phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare
visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded. ..."
"... , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the
history of the American press." But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations
pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton
last November. Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending
to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia. The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the
metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian
hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves
admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the
"trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has
been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for
more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
..."
The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats
and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top
Robert Parry
31
These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads.
After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the
aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto
Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is
from RI, not the author)
The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats
and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top. A savvy
Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they
alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats
still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.
Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have
established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties
to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the
opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump.
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.But it worked. For instance, the neocons
and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American
"peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the
Syrian government on speaking tours.Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes
in the history of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney.
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has
been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning
that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the
wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Neocon logic at its finest
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's
behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election
has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush's
Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
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 ).
"... I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia, coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump. What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this: http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol ..."
"... When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war. ..."
"... Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP? ..."
"... One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated. ..."
Recently the U.S. congress legislated sanctions against the Russian Federation over alleged, but
completely unproven, interference in the U.S. presidential elections. The vote was nearly unanimous.
President Trump signed these sanctions into law. This was a huge and stupid mistake. He should
have vetoed them, even as a veto would likely be overturned. With his signing of the law Trump gave
up the ability to stay on somewhat neutral grounds towards Russia. This for no gain to him at all.
Sanctions by Congress are quasi eternal. The 1974
Jackson-Vanik amendment
restricted trade with the then "Communist block". It was supposed to press for Jewish emigration
from the Soviet Union to Israel. But even after the Soviet Union broke down in the early 1990s, after
the "communist block" had disappeared and long after any limits on emigrations had been lifted, the
law and its economic sanctions stayed in place. It was only lifted in 2012 and only to be immediately
replaced by the ludicrous Magnitsky
act which immediately established a new set of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its
interests.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped
by domestic U.S. policy issues. There is nothing Russia could have done to avoid them and there is
nothing it can do to have them lifted.
The new U.S. sanctions are not only directed against Russia but
against
any company and nation that cooperates with Russia over energy. This a little disguised attempt to
press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian
gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and
Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The
sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. (Additional partners in the pipeline
are Austria, France and the Netherlands.) Consequently 35% of Germans name the U.S. as a "major threat
to the country". Russia is seen as such by only 33%. This view is consistent with the
global perception .
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years. On August 2 the Russian
Prime Minister Medvedev
pointed
to the weakness of President Trump as the main reason for these
sanctions
:
The US President's signing of the package of new sanctions against Russia will have a few consequences.
First, it ends hopes for improving our relations with the new US administration. Second, it is
a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia . Third, the Trump administration has shown
its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This
changes the power balance in US political circles.
What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump ; the President is not
happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions
came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they
will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile,
the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic
approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has become a key part of both US foreign policy (which has occurred
many times) and domestic policy (which is a novelty).
...
Remember that Medvedev as Russian leader was, for a long time, the "hope" of the U.S. establishment.
He was perceived as more amenable than the Russian President Putin. Medvedev may well become president
again. But no U.S. media except the
New York Post took notice of his statement. That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can
no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to? Medvedev predicts:
The sanctions regime has been codified and will remain in effect for decades unless a miracle
happens. [...] [R]elations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense
regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues
Economically and politically Russia can and will cope with these sanctions, says Medvedev. But
can the U.S.?
The supreme global role of the U.S. depends on preventing a Euro-Asian alliance between, mainly,
Russia and China. In his latest "grand chessboard" piece
Toward a Global Realignment the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski - ruthless, amoral and capable
- asserts:
[I]t behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially
threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability,
and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach.
Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.
The U.S. foreign policy establishment has declared war on Russia. The confrontational position
towards China, which was en vogue under Obama, has noticeably changed. The Hillary Clinton/Barack
Obama "pivot to Asia" was cancelled. The anti-Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been
called off. Military provocations of China in the South Chinese Sea have been reduced and replaced
by
continuous provocations against Russia in eastern Europe. These steps follow the strategy Brzezinski
laid out.
Russia has historically proven to be resourceful in its policies. It is extremely resistant to
pressure. With the U.S. in a less hostile position against China, the behemoth will relentlessly
press its own advantage. Russia will soon be one of China's main sources of fossil energy and other
commodities. There is no major reason for China and Russia to disagree with each other. Under these
circumstances the hoped for Russian-Chinese split will not happen. Core European countries will resist
pressures that endanger their economies.
The Brzezinski strategy is clouded by a personal hate against Russia. (He is descendant of minor
noble Galician-Polish
family .) It is flawed as it enables China to establish its primacy. Even under Brzezinski's
framework a Russian-European-U.S. alliance against Chinese pursuit of hegemony would have been the
more logical way to go.
Hillary Clinton's strategy
to blame Russia for her lack of likability and her failure in the election now results in a major
failure of U.S. grand strategy. An organized White House policy could have prevented that but there
is no such thing (yet) under Trump.
I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end
up in an overall advantage for the United States.
Of course the NATO alliance and much of the EU will follow such ignorance and hostility to their
grave. Unless powerful nations such as Germany wakes up to what hardship this will place on them
and the daunting danger enlisted by such a corrupt policy, we are all in for dangerous times.
The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing.
Yep, as usual short-term thinking prevails in the US. It seems cheap and easy (to the US, although
not to Europe!) to sanction Russia as well as Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea while proclaiming
US supremacy. Because of the US dollar's role as reserve currency, the US can inflict heavy damage
on many countries. "Step out of the line," the US says with its sanctions, "and you'll be next
on our list."
Unfortunately, China saw that it definitely was next on the list and the best way to alleviate
that situation was to partner with Russia to combine China's growing economic power with Russia's
military, energy, and diplomatic strengths, thus providing an impressive barrier against US unilateral
actions. The one thing the US cannot overcome--a united China and Russia -- is now in place, with
Europe just barely starting to wake up to the reality that it MIGHT not want to exclusively depend
on the US.
Russia and China exhibit long term thinking while the US follows the CEO mantra of short term
results, damn the long term effect on the company (or country).
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon will need to buy up to 18 more Russian-built RD-180 engines
to power rockets carrying U.S. military satellites into space over the next six years or so, Deputy
Defense Secretary Robert Work said in an interview on Friday.
[....]
Work said the United States needed to ensure there were at least "two affordable and reliable
means into space." He added the RD-180 would be needed only during what he described as a transition
period of new domestic rocket engine development.
"We just don't see any way you can get a new engine in anything less than six years," Work
said.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Let's think about what this means. The USSA currently possesses something like a score of these
Russian RD-180 rocket engines (they are liquid fueled -- kerosene/liquid oxygen -- engines, which
may be observed at the base of rockets). Since the USSA has physical possession of them, reverse
engineering should be a cake walk. So why the six year hold-up?
Since circa 1971 the USSA has been gutting its technology-based productional system. And since
circa 2000, Russia has been frantically consolidating its own. Of course a country may have a
large GDP and yet have a severely fragmentary productional base, if it's exporting bananas, or
technology that requires imported components, and this is just what the USSA has been doing. Because
of this productional fragmentation it cannot produce RD-180 rocket engines even though all of
the technical details of this engine are well known. It cannot even produce a quality strike fighter
jet, as illustrated in the case of the F-35.
And because the Russians have been consolidating their technological productionality while
the USSA has been fragmenting its own, the sanctions have turned out to be a tremendous boon to
the Russians.
The sanctions are all about symbolism, which the USSA is obsessed with; they are not about
gaining any advantages. Russia is the party that will reap all the advantage. The Beloved Leaders
of the USSA prove once again to be insane.
#1 "The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing."
Maybe. Maybe not. In the words of the ever-sage George Harrison, "All Things Must Pass." Anyone
for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms? Re: realignment; BRICS,
onward and upward. May the IMF and its war machine have financial competition and lose their monopolistic
squeeze on empire.
Quote: " I fail to see how the current strategy... could ever end up in an overall advantage for
the United States."
The advantage of the United States...!!?? What's that got to do with anything? The US government
is there to service the interests of Wall Street and The Israel Lobby/Neocon/International Zionists.
Everyone surely recognises this now. Get used to it.
It sounds dramatic but all I see is The Swamp's "Let's do SOMETHING, even if it's stupid" megalomaniacs
enthusiastically outing themselves. I was wondering when and how Trump was going to out them but
they've 'cleverly' decided to do it for him. I'm confident that Trump saw this coming and will
turn it to his MAGA advantage.
I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia,
coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump.
What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is
the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this:
http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol
"huge and stupid mistake" is too kind. I think it was idiotic of Trump. What's even more depressing
is that Trump is claiming "national unity" as his reason for signing. He'll get no "national unity"
for this - I suppose the Republican leaders have played him for a fool, and Trump was dumb enough
to believe it.
It's secondarily depressing that the media was claiming that Trump had little choice. So, the
media was employed in manipulating Trump, both before and after the fact (of his signing). Did
it not occur to Trump that this exculpatory nonsense might be "fake news"?
"As Paul Craig Roberts points out in his article, there were a number of strategies that could
have been taken by Trump. First, he should have vetoed the bill. At worst, if Congress overrode
his veto, Congress would bear responsibility for the political fallout or the radioactive fallout
if it comes to that.
Second, in the lead up to the veto, Trump could have brought his case to the American people.
He could have laid it all out in the open, pointing out that Congress, both misinformed and eaten
up with special interest money, was endangering America's way of life and possibly even life itself
the world over. He could have stated plainly that the interests who own Congress and who are working
through Congress are now marching the United States to World War Three. He could have even told
them to go watch The Day After with their families and ask themselves if they think the potential
costs would be worth it. He could have done any number of things explaining why he was vetoing
the bill and then he could have vetoed it. But he didn't. "
Somewhat off/topic, though if the Russia nonsense had been debunked more competently by the Trump
Administration, maybe Trump wouldn't have felt compelled to sign the sanctions bill. "Ray McGovern
Explains How The DNC Hack Was Used To Cover-Up The Election Stolen From Bernie Sanders"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vte-uSyQhKw
The Trump Administration should take McGovern's counsel often, but is probably too dumb/manipulated
to do so.
"Anyone for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms?"
Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters
will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster.
The only answer is to abolish the two-party system by eliminating the spoiler effect. Strategic
hedge simple score voting would do that. Nothing else, including "ranked choice" voting ("IRV")
will work. This is vital to understand!
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions
are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran
alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.
I don't know how far EU will go to fight back, but their alliance is breaking through all stitches,
and US effectively expedited EU rapprochement to the East. It was bound to happen sometime in
the future due to US decline and the rise of SCO/BRICS, but now calculation has changed - it will
happen soon.
"I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever
end up in an overall advantage for the United States."
unless the USG itself is nothing more at this moment than a platform for committing "crimes
against the peace," foreign & domestic. or is there some other motivation than domination of rivals,
w/not the slightest hint of "partnership"? there is nothing the USG can do except use its (overrated
& rapidly declining) military advantage to offset its steadily declining economic supremacy, w/all
the dangers of nuclear war from the morally insane running this country.
the task of people in the US is to distract the eye of Sauron (the one on the pyramid on the
dollar bill) in any way it can, until Mordor, Inc. just collapses. and that requires some serious
troublemaking here, massive national strikes, burning down the pentagon & the like, which don't
seem too likely.
@15 So long as Congress critters get to sit in office indefinitely they have the opportunity to
build their criminal fiefdoms and become available for bribery. Why do they need some legislative
track record? Either they vote for sane things or they don't. And if they're insane, they get
tossed the next election cycle. And even if they're great it is better to get fresh blood in every
few years.
A more logical solution would be to institute a draft of legislators from ordinary citizens
(who maybe need to meet certain educational benchmarks just so they're mentally capable of doing
the job--something our Congress of idiot lawyers is usually unable to do). You get drafted to
serve your nation in Congress, get a nice check, and legislate for your fellow citizens while
discussing their concerns with other regular citizens and then take your honorable discharge back
into civilian life. When you have people who want power and allow them to be elected by other
people who want the power to manipulate the people who write the laws it is necessarily going
to end in disaster. Get people who don't really want to be there and shift their composition every
few years and regulatory capture by industry becomes impossible.
Also, Congress mostly needs to spend time removing laws and consolidating laws. There isn't
really a lot of reason to pass new laws every term other than to look busy. Note they have done
absolutely nothing this term save sanction Russia and the world continues as normal.
The graft will be enormous. Billion$. The esteemed Senator McCain right in the thick of it.
Typical ridiculous doublespeak in that article - and the players - John McCain, Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings and sanctions
on two particular individuals in the Russian Space Agency.
Aug 1, 2017
Meanwhile, NASA has only 12 employees in Russia now, according to a tally in the Washington Post.
They are supporting those rides for American astronauts to the space station. America has been
paying Russia $81 million per seat for rides to the station while it awaits completion of U.S.
crew carriers being built by Boeing and SpaceX.
Add the history of cooperation, the interest in going forward by top Russian space officials,
and the money involved and the space program seems out of the threat zone for now. If Russia does
sever the relationship, it will be a sign of a truly serious breech between the two countries.
Perhaps a secret life in government, a spy since WWII, a secret life lived, but not ever fully-vetted,
secret knowledge and involvement in Dallas 1963 to later become a pivotal US President to invade
Iraq, and still today, a life not ever fully vetted, would give you pause that the answer lies
in the simple abolition of the 2 party system?
China is making well-planned, strategic moves - Silk Road, Rail Bridge to Russia, Base in Djibouti.
All excellent. Nothing ham-handed, self-defeating, short-term, knee-jerk and stupid.
,BLOCKQUOTE>"Indeed the more I think about this bizarre sanctions law the more I wonder whether
the impeachment scenario I have just outlined may have been the very scenario that it was intended
to engineer." ...
"In other words the sanctions law may have been put together by the President's opponents in
Congress – who include Republicans as well as Democrats – with the actual intention of provoking
him into vetoing it so as to set up the conditions for his impeachment by Congress on an issue
where Congress is united against him."
"If so then the President – heeding the advice of his lawyers – has sidestepped the trap whilst
putting himself in a strong position to challenge the law in the US Supreme Court when the right
moment comes."
The globalists boogieman is Putin and Team, at least for the next four or more years. He became
their target for displeasure long ago, thus, he must pay. Globalists don't give a rats about Trump's
agenda BECAUSE the Globalists bought Congress off long ago...THEY OWN IT. Congress stopped working
for the good folks of the United States long ago and for heavens sake they're not all of a sudden
going to start working for us now. Just sayin...
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that
the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them. Those wringing their
hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable
because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First"
is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert
means. As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits
of restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will
play a big part in post-Putin politics. If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road
transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western
candidates will gain much support.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were
shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.
Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))
Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is
idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import
overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate
the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if the Germans were to
cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia anyway.
So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.
Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement,
which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing, including
I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.
Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its discretion.
If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he would be overridden
for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely. From there, it's completely
realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good many Republicans would go along
with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*
I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that people
read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully. But in
his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the Supreme Court
if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements of the sanctions
bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.
It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it open
to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand now - while
the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the sanctions both fail
and help to tear the EU apart.
* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece agrees
that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support impeachment, and
adds:
"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's
term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real' Republican
in his place."
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was entirely
predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."
Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the
meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm
not sure if such a term for his style even exists.
But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I don't
see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing the legislation
makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines being drawn in the
sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision making these days is murky
at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving' as being part of his character.
Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.
And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one navigate
the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders are out to
destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get their way so they
are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they are wielding when
they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I haven't read the vote
tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted against it).
My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction and
maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v Trump/Pence.
Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an
option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their construction.
At least I think it's Boing.
If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry
about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent
groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately
thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is
in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid,
but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands from the White House and
Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned a hard coup
isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.
Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of government
very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto, and a veto would
only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation of powers. As matters
stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.
If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and
bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence supporting
legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.
He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due the
impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute and you've
got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll numbers sinking).
On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts instead of caving and earning
the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect he might have gotten a little
respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept. I agree with b.
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead
to?
When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep
in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous
delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions
taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war.
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing;
I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN
(RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with notations stating
its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this latest RP label attempt
and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions
into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election
cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful
God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job
description?? Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of
you." Remember he has already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his
own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that
every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC
interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the
opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will
contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will
be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North
Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then
being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of
Evil" or "the Free World"
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number
of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has anyone
else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military power block
to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see
the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will
repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid
of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?
Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing
- gruel for the knuckleheads.
There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger
for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President
Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility
he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning
from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat from constituents
for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote was due to many congresscritter's
assumption that Trump would do just that.
For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links
to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing
to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in
its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it will break the mirror before
allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber to
the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave
if he knew how his American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.
>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office.
Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.
>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists
were phonies but Trump is the real deal?
>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly,
Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.
>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media
dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better
chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see:
NYPost: Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.
>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close
to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary
by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama was foreign
born.
>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?
>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek
to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health
helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.
>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel
the scaremongering over Russia:
> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in
2013) and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);
> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he
did;
> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking
Sessions; etc.
> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best
way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a few
changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from the new
sanctions.
I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough,
nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get hit,
then something may happen.
With Trumps amendments to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master rather
than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.
Berry Friesen@43 - "...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto..."
Depends. From Mercouris:
With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say
that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the integrity
of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was therefore guilty of
committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against Russia, the US's main
international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds
they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.
Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves the
definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere
the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could
be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition
and would vote for impeachment on that basis.
This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the thesis
that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris points out,
the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is entirely up to Congress
, not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand up in US courts
and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.
An impeachment resolution
HR 438 has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing Trump's
firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's sponsor acknowledges
it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be amended with additional articles
of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one assumes all Democrat lower house representatives
vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it.
It has not been submitted to a vote, but will when the representatives think the charges are numerous
and strong enough that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily
a Democrat vs. Republican fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a
much more obedient replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous
vote for the sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching: "Trump must go!
They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks credible
and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding the veto as
the only thing Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment against Trump.
The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of manufactured evidence
to confuse the little people and raise doubt.
FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with Russia.
It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a side-effect)
blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to impeach Trump.
If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!
If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an indictment
(perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges are true. In
any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which will be used to
strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with elections. A veto to
the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not 'prove' an impeachable offense
by itself.
An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to
interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if they
prove the thesis by law or logic.
The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement
lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove sufficient.
They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only 'evidence' that
will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking... Trump Must Go!
I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make much
difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more than,
say, a microsecond or two.
Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:16:36 PM |
60 Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM |
61
karlof1 56
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only
writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in
MSM.
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear warhead.
And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be bothered
to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one with the clear,
open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which will forever stand
as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible move
for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic ties. It's
probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a third of Europe
to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier when that kind of
moves would've been far less costly.
While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time,
probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA,
the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA
actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far
right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so
the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former
Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a
flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether
had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian
invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two
days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing
Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was
actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where
each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population
reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his
government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely
lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which
also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext
to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the
USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a
reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US
economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in
addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered
huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were
closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along
with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the
end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have
no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters
inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully
opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.
Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans
would vote for in November.
Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:
"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed
separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."
As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing
Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000
dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.
If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a
Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of
the Donbass.
Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun
of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.
Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after
Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.
Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John
McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"
Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.
But about this new arms deal questions arise.
As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot
down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why
would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians
on both sides?
The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.
"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he
withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next
year's presidential election."
Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still
in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians
the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.
This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash
the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.
Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?
Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him
of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger
questions.
Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These
are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker,
the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.
A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker
believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk
are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.
A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon
McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his
family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:
"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for
Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion
that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring
Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home
in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are
unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and
break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a
just settlement.
Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties
among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and
withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?
What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?
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."
E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting
in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.
The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.
@reiner
Tor
"Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator." Well said.
Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear
not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless
stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.
What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can
bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what
we regard as a just settlement
.
On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that
Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with
Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field,
where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international
competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under
pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And
once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in
Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed
as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and
this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting
event.
And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of
containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's
actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World
hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR.
This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will
cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it
.
The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing
it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that
plan succeeded
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the
parties involved.
@reiner
Tor
It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic
Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might
well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously
misunderestimated the situation there.
I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their
guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of
firing those guns but hey, shit happens!
Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been
backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is
concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much
responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA
can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.
Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and
fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation
dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American
provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no
problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make
official, its support for the NDF.
As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the
world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the
problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about
fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained.
Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.
As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in
bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take
losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not
appearing to react strongly enough.
As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down
the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant
leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over
the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national
interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.
If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian
Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this
matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this
point that I have raised
look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a
bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.
But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the
USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that
why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service"
spectacles at athletic events?
I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true
conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only
because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this
country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the
lawful territory of the United States
More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in
nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more
steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will
bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers
coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.
1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers
(aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern
Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops
in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this
baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations
from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are
deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.
2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of
any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics
of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter,
of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak
of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and
with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in
general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire
consequences for both US and its clients.
putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow
NK to be taken over.
It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming
majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined
West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West
(US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's
"scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her
20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming
empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major
reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because
they are incompetent.
If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction
of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American
stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the
hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin
wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated
EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU
wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking
Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has
two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody.
That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at
home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will
destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown
it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a
liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to
get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are
incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly
misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US
hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the
EU!
"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons?
[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD
FROM THE BEGINNING]?"
Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or
departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his
initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the
other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is
what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it
doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the
members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the
Clinton and Obama political mafia.
The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump
should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and
just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in
Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US
to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites
are.
Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military
bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and
provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political
leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although
they are thin on the ground.
@JL
As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a
temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk
II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E.,
temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco,
and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The
proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air,
or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground
attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the
request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course,
Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently
IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen
conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.
@Wally
You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global
hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign
policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming
Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas
and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling
disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get
out, so I'm wasting my breath.
This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the
10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.
last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed
and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we
regard as a just settlement.
It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in
the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and
they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″
shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have
been asking about their kids.
The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may
not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but
it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.
@Taras77
"The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates
"
This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large.
McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus
insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable
Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open
fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of
profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become
all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/
"McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not
America."
'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction,
and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.
The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty
little country" is doomed. Excellent.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish
pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant
promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives
the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to
question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"?
Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie
might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle
fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such
time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the
concerned parties
but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International
Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now
destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The
charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling
zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.
A precedent would be the French protectorates
you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore
Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the
Donbas using forces located in Russian;
the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked,
shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world
with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were
right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the
ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign
borders!!
'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'
blah, blah, blah
What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if
they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel
Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that
happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east
that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down
like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.
@neutral
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right
as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if
the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports,
showing what is truly important in life
@Andrei
Martyanov
Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".
Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and
those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table",
in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and
openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for
Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in
a manner that will allow them to demonize it.
As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance
are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C.
"national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.
Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of
his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national
security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.
What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then
use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all
what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them
to demonize it.
It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried
before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary,
may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present
state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think
the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale
offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but
political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very
short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics.
Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far
East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun
intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I
think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So,
concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.
@Ludwig
Watzal
"Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his
agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."
Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by
"accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole
campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran
with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over
to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates
(or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).
What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the
maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is
seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in
making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily
reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be
building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities
to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf
countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any
attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations.
Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out
war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game?
who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil
war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.
@Michael
Kenny
The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern
countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll
rightly cut and run.
USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece
CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking
Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..
It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader
than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a
supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme
crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can
see.
@Rurik
The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when
a previous
puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the
CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html
"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's
fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the
time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was
president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e.,
Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security"
contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist
under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically
disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit
that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to
participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package)
and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue
from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas
overlord."
Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re
"sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US
corporations.
Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?
technicalities.
Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis
Brandeis & his claque.
Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus,
pater et fil
plus their acolytes and
syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish
string-pullers who maneuvered FDR
as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to
protecting the interests of the American people.
Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The
Only Language they Understand,"
http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/
, Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is
surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel,
demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that
Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.
When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall
describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists:
it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in
other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of
the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.
@Alden
"Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"
Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than
perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.
I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's
apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet
he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He
didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance.
And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."
@Quartermaster
You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.
Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia
troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the
Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as
yet.
And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along
you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in
Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats –
no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions
invading Donbass.
You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the
scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll
end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to
fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly
do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former
compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.
they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian"
oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down.
Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down
(which would explain the machine gun holes).
this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on
will say 'this video has been removed'
@reiner
Tor
Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their
minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit
and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another
Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our
times.
Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there
may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.
Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours.
We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe
without our being in the know.
Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in
peace.
Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder,
who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story
on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the
legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson
of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder studied
economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with
reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for
Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team
at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish
banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage
is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused
on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares
scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir
Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice
he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a
corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that
made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an
arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy
of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia
in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three
companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not
clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia
in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully,
made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during
and since that time, though there have been
skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale
to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman,
always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians
and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully
constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's
mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he
died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly
after he had a heart attack. A
subsequent investigation
ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received
medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents
sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer,
which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation
of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable
the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to
how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other
than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered
by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used
to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that
contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence
officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable
care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided.
It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been
the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience
perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business
activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia
and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain,
Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what
the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted
should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And
then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing
to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are
making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube
running away from a
server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov
Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting
tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.
Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who
tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".
During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially
a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but
this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia?
Here is pretty interesting and educational reading
"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US
Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running
a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time
was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond
Safra."
His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that
some influential British structures were behind his activities.
In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more
useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and
already started talking.
It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something
you now must decipher.
"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than
it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the
Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".
There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not
want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder
and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never
come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom
and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and
THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This
entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers.
And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian
oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.
the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist
shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to
destroy Nationalist Russia
And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy
of the West.
I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia
or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely:
Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that
concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people.
Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human
rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.
But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced
with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention
them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly
or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and
their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.
And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing
another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names,
I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.
The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream
press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during
the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state,
change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of
this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.
Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized
Jewry.
In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish
Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's
"number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor
Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust
Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed
Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.
Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary
of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian
president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his
best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.
"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes
that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing
bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU.
He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.
Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even
more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened
to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.
You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available
some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved
financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise
selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the
(dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being
systematically murdered off
Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that
were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the
West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last
century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here,
fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.
It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West,
where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous
atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.
That's how it seems to me anyways.
(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)
I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and
peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines
the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio
In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against
war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached
Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western
narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough
that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .
Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky
Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim
McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named
after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel
and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.
During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle
– published on November 27.
"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward
in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution.
People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern
said.
When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my
friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."
He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel
from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record.
I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.
@Anonymous
As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?
A: Which one is the Jew?"
Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying
and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth
into a blaspheme of some sort.
Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a
Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after
Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians
he is responsible for murdering?
@Anonymous
Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?
The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good
mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it
appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle
also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew.
Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that
neither of them are Jews.
A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director,
1981-1987)
If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean
what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like
every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security
of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure
the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .
Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.
I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish
or anything.
That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her.
Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy
John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.
@Greasy
William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew
who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar
serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.
@Wizard
of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as
such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally
back in the 90s and 00s.
@Boris
N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia,
as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.
However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken,
incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during
his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who
salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all
of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being
underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which
had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's
orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.
Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity.
As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries,
including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies.
Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the
Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,
which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.
@Wizard
of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically
Jewish"."
Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The
fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe
that fact.
@Eileen
Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not
Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian,
so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?
I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too
disreputable.
A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of
associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least
weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like
from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out
of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt
it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?
Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but
clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS
controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official
Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately
the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the
same duo, by the way).
Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former
KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as
a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere
and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving
around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of
the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think
Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by
the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in
fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.
Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything
is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power.
Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely
public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy
president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call
him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How
can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again
we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections
with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.
The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come
from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures
(usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks).
And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands
of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is
a second (true?) capital of Russia.
So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must
we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.
Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further
yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do
not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?)
documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them
to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively
thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their
real goal is just to hide the real truth.
from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant,
while ours is being systematically murdered off
As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians
have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural
resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme
poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia
outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country,
in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference.
This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia
seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly
complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were
born or live there.
And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire
country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western
companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore
havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption
is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why
the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half
of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the
other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin
oligarchic clique.
And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly
exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial
cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):
Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
High Middle 20% – $400-$600
Upper 5% – $600-$1200
In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but
they comprise barely 15% of the population.
And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.
I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where
70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with
the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average
pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small
amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.
And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia
is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population
after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close
to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage
of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims
and Muslim immigrants.
@Eileen
Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been
created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above,
Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up
to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev
and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted.
Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned,
rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from
the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They
buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have
bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money.
The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian
wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.
And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia
is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people".
It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th
century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect
for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture
and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.
However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You
imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly
believe there are many better alternatives.
@Boris
N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more
than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact,
it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other
unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread
drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak
of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's
obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money
at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit
families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same
would be true for the average Russian today.
We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi
and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of
Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's
how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild
boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the
fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies,
and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.
Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people
have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it
all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish
'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild-
to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around
is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man.
A giant on the world's stage.
He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping
to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for
Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and
tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter
and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.
Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was
wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with
a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands,
as Gadhafi had done.
That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption
is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back
their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations..
Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.
How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans
may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage
being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned
into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of
personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics
and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.
That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't
all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.
I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack
of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do
not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even
might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people
will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue,
like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better
"spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means
a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about
the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.
We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .
1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's
deal.
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having
publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent
the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not
some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would
be quick to tell you.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted
Obama's deal.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted
in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem
having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.
again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the
default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to
play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's
like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case
may be, but sure as shit don't like them.
Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists
no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West
all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not
Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was
talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your
quote!
But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the
middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians
or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists,
who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.
@Boris
N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount
of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have
at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being
living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this
out.
@Rurik
I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners
simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not
live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why
I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream
one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes
or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who
love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because
no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices
(I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their
own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally
different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there
is no false dichotomy like in the West.
And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the
Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always
means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it,
and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I
understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way,
so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something
is white.
On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously
do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic
individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but
whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and
know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive
interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be
true).
Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho
Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow
Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of
the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is
owned by Gazprom).
What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand
that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right,
and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed
to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion,
be it right or wrong.
Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed
by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better
land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there
is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to
Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow,
you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to
Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).
@Greasy
William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply
because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different
small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call
them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may
call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions
about the past and the current affairs.
Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran,
Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since
the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that
the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished
war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as
good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here,
most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not
care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly
internal problems.
I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic
view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full
stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically
have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy,
when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that
if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?
It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means,
they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving
as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in
a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable
result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor
but "spiritual" San Salvador?
Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual"
San Salvador?
But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually
healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern
for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.
I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed
on their asses.
And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples
of national states, of what Russia must become.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the
different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite
rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have
ever read and I really liked it a lot.
The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the
West.
well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either
'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.
Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's
this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.
I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite
way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it
as something is white.
I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't
mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies,
and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).
When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot
down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination
of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction
of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling
him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the
line.
but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn,
believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both
the places and I can compare
It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia
and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)
I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But
today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and
chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the
trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country
on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the
Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone
else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people
for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too
expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more
cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the
wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest
men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation.
(it's what the do ; )
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her
hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was
an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed
on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he
played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten
billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing
to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.
But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the
West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat
to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death
struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.
It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia,
and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia
great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to
take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.
The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia
public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.
I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians
are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't
them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.
The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I
have said, hate Putin's guts.
how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?
From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things
must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.
here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist
Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable.
As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.
having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.
This from an article on Russia today:
Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the
fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like
Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox
Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we
are addicted to a beautiful soul.
more:
Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian
people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country.
Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt
to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish
Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population
of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine?
Is this not a double standard?
.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become
one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and
we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.
I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius
to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named
by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who
bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.
Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked
it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it
has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine
that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.
I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the
other discredited western "news" outlets.
the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I
don't like Putin'.
To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does
not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but
one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other
a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult
to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just
one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.
I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe
the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated
on many issues.
It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.
OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado,
or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot
not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global
political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters.
But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them
both.
But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption
and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.
Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information.
You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person,
Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know
more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you
might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government,
if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people,
I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They
have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.
And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as
like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements
of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position.
And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered
a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave
her hope,
Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation
of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team"
are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things
in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has
done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his
deceit, how naive.
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas
tattooed on their asses.
If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority.
Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those
Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where
the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent
elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state,
with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while
a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the
West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake
of "earning" money.
Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said
Israel was taken as an example I meant something like
that .
lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the
Russian nationalists are on about
(they love Putin ; )
No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting
site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.
The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and
constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not
in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on
July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was
adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a
certainty.
... ... ...
The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has
developed a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy
thanks to the omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain
intimidation.
... ... ...
Extraterritoriality
The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche,
summed up the situation as follows:
"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American
legislation whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic
and political imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always
in the United States, that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the
best intentions in the world since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power',
that is a country that can only do good."
Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the
United States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange
American law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having
an American subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based
server, or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international
enterprise can avoid. In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping
fine of nearly nine billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with
countries under U.S. sanctions. The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But
because they dealt in dollars, payments transited by way of the United States, where diligent
computer experts could find the needle in the haystack. European banks are faced with the
choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of restrictions and punishments before a
verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate lawyers, and entering into
the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar to Europeans. Just
like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge the huge European
enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.
Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high
speed trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of
corruption (probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its
electricity branch to General Electric.
The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S.
firms to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole
range of U.S. intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are
engaged in commercial espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, devoted to this task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30
million. The comparable office in Paris employs five people.
This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose
European banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning
investments in the vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.
This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down
national legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone
else for anything, with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the
United States.
... ... ...
Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and
eliminate competitors. We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."
This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of
"taxation without representation" exercised by the United States against its European
satellites. They committee members all agreed that something must be done.
That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission
chairman, Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth
Guigou (a leading Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to
inexperienced newcomers recruited into President Emmanuel Macron's
République en
marche
party. The newcomers are having a hard time finding their way in parliamentary life
and have no political memory, for instance of the Rapport on Extraterritoriality.
As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings
by approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the
United States.
However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on
forever.
Diana Johnstone is co-author of From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone (Clarity
Press).
She can be reached at
[email protected]
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
"... Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new sanctions? ..."
"... It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of private profit why they take the decisions that they do. ..."
"... This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia playing this out? ..."
PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy
industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this
bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups.
And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which
is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy
companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that
they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the
United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes
are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US
representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3]
voted
against it. You can see
the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations
between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the
United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.
... ... ...
RT:
Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff
there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new
sanctions?
PCR: I think the Russian leadership now has to finally abandon its cherished illusion that
it can reach accommodation with Washington. I have made clear for a long time now, the only way
Russia can reach accommodation with Washington is to surrender and to accept American hegemony.
Now, if the Russian government continues with this illusion that it can reach an accommodation,
I think it is guilty of a very dangerous delusion. I think this should be a wake-up call for
Russia that the United States Congress has now made the principal goal of American foreign
policy conflict with Russia.
It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political
class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to
handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and
armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When
you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is
paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of
private profit why they take the decisions that they do.
– Craig Murray, former UK
diplomat
RT:
This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing
out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the
wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia
playing this out?
PCR: Trump no longer can normalize relations. The bill prohibits that. And he has no real
alternative to signing it because it's veto-proof. If Trump doesn't sign it, the media will use
that as proof that he is working in favor of Russia and that would probably lead to his
impeachment. So what Russia does, I don't know, it depends on how much they wake up, how much
they give up this illusion, this delusion actually, of reaching an accommodation. It is a
serious situation for Russia to have the United States committed to a path of conflict with
Russia. And that is precisely where the United States is. That is the precise effect of this
bill and that is the intention of one of the two main sponsors of the bill – to further
the conflict, to raise tensions, because this is essential to the power and budget of the
military-security complex.
Guardian is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for neocons and neoliberals now. A
part of the US deep state war propaganda machine.
Shaun is well-known Guardian pressitute, so the article by itself does not make much sense. But
some comments are interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... So Putin helps reduce Russian collusion in US Embassy in Moscow. That is the bright side I believe. ..."
"... Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly scandalous a decision. ..."
A source in Moscow confirmed that the 455 figure was not only for US diplomats but for all staff
employed at the US missions, "from the cleaners to the ambassador", and said it would be up to the
Americans to decide how they reorganised their staffing.
Putin said on Sunday evening that the Russian order meant that 755 employees would have to "cease
their work".
The US embassy has refused to comment on how many staff it has and what the breakdown is between
local hires and diplomats, but a 2013 internal report into the Russia mission noted that the state
department deployed 301 diplomats and 934 locally hired staff positions in Russia. Allowing for small
changes over the past four years, this would fit roughly with Putin's statement that 755 should be
dismissed to leave a total of 455.
... ... ...
The almost unanimous passing by both houses of Congress last week of
new sanctions proved to be the final straw. Putin last week
said Russia could not continue to tolerate such "insolence" from the Americans.
"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response would
have looked weak," the pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov wrote on Facebook.
"After the new law in which Russia is basically called an enemy of the US, there's no possibility
for good relations. So why do we need such a big army of their diplomats here? So that they can spy
and interfere in our elections? It's better if they go home."
Please ....... provide evidence, because even the US hasn't provided any proof, all they do is
make a noise ....... out of the emptiest vessels comes the loudest noise.
Russia is more convenient as an enemy because it allows to justify spending a trillion on American
"defense" every year without actually going to war with Russia.
At the same time, Russia is a major competitor in the energy and weapons sales businesses,
and hurting Russia means benefiting the US businesses in this area.
'What will be the ramifications of Putin's order to reduce US embassy staff?'
We can safely assume that none of the diplomats the US chooses to bring home were engaged in
espionage, allowing the Russian security services to better concentrate their resources on the
remainder.
And what follows is not going to be pleasant for Russia and Putin....talk about blowback.
Not sure that, that will be the case. Putin outmanoeuvred Obama and the US re Crimea, and Syria,
added to which there was an article recently whereby both China and Russia agreed to protect each
other, they both know that if one falls the other one will be next. Trump and the US have been
waving their small willies around re the South China Sea, China has not said no ships can pass
through it, and the US has also been having a go at Russia, the EU however, are not willing to
support the new sanctions.
There is a crazy mentality in Washington, (together with a load of arm chair journalist) who
think that if they start a war, they will win, the truth will probably be far more serious than
that, for all parties, and the wider world ....... and then ask yourself why has neither China
or Russia both of whom have vetoing powers on the UN, not pushed North Korea re it's missile tests,
the geography, speaks for itself. It is about time, the willy waving, power crazed noises in the
US, shut up. Jaw, jaw, is far better than a major catastrophe
This report could be factually more informative. There is reciprocity in the Russian move: the
455 staff who may stay on at the US Missions in Russia is precisely the number employed by Russia
at its Missions in the US. In terms of real estate too there is reciprocity: 2 for 2.
For an informed assessment see:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/07/30/us-russia-ties-going-south /
I'm certain that China is able to supple Russia with whatever fertilisers + machinery it needs
though the Yanks have missed out in their sales of GMO seeds as Russia wouldn't except them as
a gift ( neither would Ukraine- if it has any sense left ( hmm-debatable)).
That's oversimplified bullocks, and I think you know it. US foreign policy in constant regardless
of who is in the WH and Russia has been very patient.
How easily the public is mis led by the lies of our so called intelligence agencies and the accusations
of a hysterical Hillary and the DNC .This has played perfectly into the hands of the NEO CONS.All
without one scintilla of proof of any Russian hacking.As a 35 yr ,hi ranking whistle blowing NSA
official William Binney said ,he suspects an FBI official released the E-Mails.Democrats and liberals
have jumped on board because it makes the idiot ,boy king look bad.They have forgotten all the
lies told to us since the end of WW2 by the pentagon,CIA,FBI,NSA State Dept and unnamed sources
like "Curve Ball"and WMDs.
and for the average south and central american, under waves of repression brought about by the
us, sometimes indirectly, sometimes directly, over more than a century.
Middle east:
American and western aggression also comes to mind.
a large amount of pity is indicated.
and regret. and sorrow.
repent, us -- there will be little forgiveness.
It is quite funny to watch. Obama and Clinton laughed at the suggestion of interference, now they've
lost it's all their media friends are pushing. It is quite transparent and quite hypocritical
considering the amount of elections and governments they've interfered with over the years.
The only way to make the cuts without sending dozens of diplomats home would be to make career
diplomats start pruning the hedges and answering the phones.
Love it ..... lets see how well, these self-important people manage) Putin and Russia have
been very restrained since Obama threw his teddy across the room, and spat out his dummy. No proof
has been provided to collaborate Russia's supposed interference in the US elections, (the same
as with other accusations) and until there is, the US should stop having childish tantrum ......
what's more, the US is saying that it is not the greatest nation on earth, that it's security/
IT systems aren't all singing, all dancing (well they have been hacked into by teenagers and others
with medical condition), and that unless something goes a particular way, they'll shout 'it's
not fair' like 5 year olds, when they can't get their own way ........ incidentally how many people
precisely actually voted on line in the US? or is the US, saying all the millions who voted for
Trump were brain-washed by Russia? If so, then Russia is most certainly the most powerful nation
on earth.
Thank you for your mail. Unfortunately most people in the UK (and almost all those in the US)
believe all this stupid propaganda about Putin interfering in elections and being an aggressive
warmonger when he is nothing of the sort. The US war machine needs constant conflict, and Putin,
by standing up to the US, provides a significant enough enemy to get budgets approved. I wish
you all the best in Russia.
Russia's surprise move is so severe that if it goes ahead it is likely to paralyse the work
of US diplomats in Russia – depending on how the details shake out
'Diplomats' or 'spies' to give them their proper name.
Well, if 455 Russian diplomats can serve the US, a country of 320mil+ people, then the same number
should be able to serve the country of 140mil+ people.
Yet, it already takes 2 months for a Russian tourist to get a US visa, while it takes just
a couple of days for an American tourist to get a Russian visa.
I am assuming with the cuts it is going to be a year to get an American visa.
Honestly, I always got an impression that Americans didn't want to give visas to Russians at
all. Otherwise, why make the process so difficult?
Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual
norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly
scandalous a decision.
"I expect that Putin and Trump will take it from here to move towards more constructive relations."
You appear to have convinced yourself the Russia wants to be America's friend. No, they dont.
They want to best America, to achieve for yhemselves everything that Americans already have.
The Russians are still eager, still hungry. America, by comparisson, is fat and complacent.
What do you mean to say, "banning the import of European produce is hitting Russians"? Do you
mean that we are starving here in Russia? I live in the agricultural South of Russia. Farmers
and various sanctioned food producers in Russia pray to almighty God, the sanctions to last forever.
It gives them great competitive advantage in a pretty large country.
Low Rouble rate also helps
a lot to export all kinds of agricultural products. As for European export producers - well we
don't care. And it's strange to think that absence of French cheese or Polish apples will make
us cry.
The US makes itself enemies around the world. When Russia, China and the middle east states got
enough and fed up with the US, it can stop using the US dollars as reserve currency and at the
moment is an economic collapse of the US inevitable. It is probably going to happen in the future
and in this case
The US with its worthless currency is doomed as Britain even far more.
"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response
would have looked weak ..."
Markov's statement in the final paragraph sums up this sad situation well.
Putin is clear-minded enough to see that this latest episode of orchestrated Russophobia for
US internal political purposes is not Trump's fault. He had little choice in the matter.
"... The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered , demonstrated that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More recent editions of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political leadership. ..."
"... Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016 elections!and, in fact, there are serious doubts about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will reverse its annexation of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. ..."
would
sign
the bill!perhaps reflecting just how much proponents of a new cold war with Russia
have intimidated the Trump team. The extent and virulence of anti-Russia sentiment has reached
alarming levels.
Members
of Congress and other
opinion
leaders in
both
parties have branded the alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 election as an act of war, and one
congressman even explicitly compared it to
Pearl Harbor and 9-11
.
Given such hysteria and the lopsided congressional vote in favor of the sanctions
legislation, Trump's reluctance to use his veto power was not necessarily a manifestation of
political cowardice. Only
three House members
and
two
senators
(Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders) cast negative votes. Even Senator Mike Lee
(R-Utah), who usually is sensible on foreign policy issues, joined the legislative lynch
mob.
The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive
record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer,
Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott,
Economic Sanctions Reconsidered
, demonstrated
that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More
recent editions
of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the
targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they
seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true
when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political
leadership.
The track record in recent decades does very little to contradict that thesis. The United
States and its allies have imposed ever-tightening sanctions on North Korea to force that
country to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang's repeated
nuclear tests and its recent launches of an
intercontinental
ballistic missile
demonstrate the utter futility of the sanctions strategy.
Washington has been equally unsuccessful in using that tactic toward another adversary,
Cuba. A succession of U.S. administrations, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower's, maintained that
approach for more than a half century before Barack Obama
began
to normalize relations
with Havana in late 2014. Unfortunately, President Trump
rescinded
several
of the beneficial and realistic changes that his predecessor had made. Yet the
results of the Cuba embargo were
no more impressive
than the outcome of sanctions against North Korea. Washington's demands
that the Castro regime stop its human-rights abuses, move toward democracy, and compensate
Americans for property seized following the 1959 revolution all failed to produce any
discernible results. The Castro dynasty remains in power, the Cuban regime is still a communist
dictatorship, there has been no compensation for seized property, and the improvement in the
treatment of political dissidents is minimal, at best.
Even the alleged success stories that sanctions proponents tout turn out to be unimpressive.
The Iran agreement is a prominent example. Sanctions may have played a modest role in getting
Tehran to the conference table, but the agreement occurred only when the United States and the
other P5+1 powers backed off of their demand that Iran capitulate and refrain from developing
any capacity to enrich uranium. The resulting agreement was very much a compromise measure, and
hawks in the United States vehemently
condemned it
as a
U.S.-led
surrender
to Iran.
Imposing harsh measures on Russia is especially worrisome. Moscow was quick to retaliate for
congressional passage of the latest punitive package. Vladimir Putin's government
immediately ordered
a reduction in the size of America's embassy staff in Moscow and seized
several U.S. diplomatic properties. Moreover, the argument that Russia's actions were in
response to the Obama administration's similar steps in December 2016 misconstrues the
situation. Putin made a point of assuring President-elect Trump that he
would not retaliate
for the December penalties. But imposition of the new sanctions
triggered a decisive policy change.
Economic sanctions appear to be the
habitual favorite tool
in Washington's foreign policy tool kit. It provides the illusion of
a moderate, middle course between a total reliance on diplomacy and resorting to military
force. Given that tactic's pervasive lack of effectiveness, though, policymakers need to
overcome their obsession. That is especially so when the underlying demands are completely
unrealistic.
Sanctions will not compel North Korea to give up its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Pyongyang's leadership elite believes that it needs such capabilities
to deter
Washington from contemplating forcible regime change. Given U.S. actions against
such
nonnuclear
adversaries
as Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, that is not an irrational conclusion.
Likewise, new sanctions against Tehran for violating "
the spirit
" of the P5+1 accord is thoroughly counterproductive. Even the Trump
administration had to
concede
, however
reluctantly, that Iran has abided by the actual terms of the agreement. Imposing sanctions is
not likely to cause President Rouhani's relatively moderate government to become more
cooperative. Indeed, that step may strengthen the power of Iranian hardliners who wish to
repudiate the agreement and move to build a nuclear deterrent.
Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already
worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016
elections!and, in fact, there are
serious
doubts
about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in
eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will
reverse its
annexation
of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up
the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the
puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Economic sanctions have the dubious quality of being simultaneously provocative and
ineffectual. The latest manifestation likely will cause serious trouble for the United States
on multiple fronts. Policymakers need to overcome their addiction to sanctions before it
produces an immense tragedy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of
more than 650 articles on international affairs.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
The US Congress feel that they own the Earth like a big plantation, and all other countries including
Russia, China, Japan and "Europiean allies" are their vassals. That's typical for the elite which lost
connection with the reality as the global neoliberal empire built by the USA and allies since 1980 beginning
to crumbles. Same situation happened with th UK elite too. At the same time the US is still dominant
in many spheres and Russia should be very careful with countermeasures. The US Congress is spoiling
for a fight, or, at least, is dreaming about the return of good old days on Cold War (with now now as
a designated "Evil empire"), when existence of the USSR prevented the US elite from going off rails
and helped to keep vassals (aka allies) in check.
But he did insist Russia remained keen on "continuing cooperation in the areas that correspond
to our interests", suggesting Moscow remains open to working together on Syria after agreeing a ceasefire
with the US in the south of the war-torn country.
... ... ...
In response to allegations of Kremlin election hacking then US president Barack Obama in December ordered
out 35 Russian diplomats and closed down two embassy summer houses that Washington said were being used
by Moscow for espionage.
At the time, the Kremlin said it would put any retaliation on hold as it waited for Trump to take
office.
House Speaker Paul Ryan just bragged the House passed "one of the most expansive sanction
packages in history." The bill places sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Factor in
Trump's ill-advised threats to raise tariffs on Chinese steel, and we have at hand a
protectionist trade war tinder box in search of a match.
Protectionist trade war tinderbox in search of a match: EU, Russia, Brexit, Chinese Steel,
Nord Stream, Trump
https://t.co/DMQzgf3nji
The bi-partisan votes are only rare because they have to maintain the illusion of there
being two opposing parties. When it comes to legislation to grow government intrusion,
violate the Constitution, wars, etc, these "rare" votes always show up.
Russian Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti on
Wednesday.
He asserted the restrictions cannot inflict substantial damage on Russia. "Our
macroeconomic policy is shaped in such a way so that sanctions-related shockwaves coming from
outside do not have significant impact on the Russian economy," he said.
My opinion is this does Fuck the EU! I hope the temps in the EU are unbelievably fucking
cold this winter!!!
The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs
for decades.
This includes US meddling in Russian elections using NGO's. Not only does the US meddle
and interfere in other countries elections it overthrows democratically elected governments
it doesn't like, and then installs puppet leaders. Our neocons casually refer to this as
"regime change".
I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if Russia fomented, paid for, and
assisted in a violent overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected government in
Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City helping
and training radicals how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment violent
pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico City handing out tacos, and tamales
emboldening and urging these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and toss the
bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta
puppet leaders of Mexico and a Russian senator, Ivan MiKainlev in Mexico City stating on RT,
there are no drug cartels here!
On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers spent billions doing exactly
this. Instead of drug cartels it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including
John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess, civil war and horrific death in
Ukraine on Russia's border and then placed all the blame for it on Putin and Russia.
WTF!!!
Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the regime change policy implemented
by Obama, Clinton and Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is totally
fucked. It is now a banana republic embroiled in a civil war. For the US and NATO the golden
prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme
did not play out as intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons place on
Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!
Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned taxpayer dollars to create pain,
suffering, death and a civil war inside Ukraine on Russia's border!
This is a case of don't do what we do [meddle and interfere], only do what we tell you to
do! The moral of the story here is its perfectly okay when we do it. We don't like it when we
think it's been done to us!
It's hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!
Tech Camp NGO operating out of US Embassy in Kiev (using social media to help bring out
radicals-
PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy
industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this
bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups.
And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which
is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy
companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that
they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the
United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes
are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US
representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3]
voted
against it. You can see
the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations
between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the
United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.
Dollar dominance is just one feature of neoliberalism. You just can't take is separately
and attack it. You will be instantly crushed.
And BTW Russia is still a neoliberal country with its own set of oligarchs (some of which
now will face significant losses) and after Yeltsin drunken rampage always was. Which
represents the fifth column within the country. So fact they did not rebel, but this may
eventually change as losses are mounted. This is the USA calculation.
It was a miracle that Russia avoided further dismembering and complete neoliberal
colonization. But that's about it. Now this is not the time to test its luck again, I think.
It's too early.
BTW China is also a neoliberal country as well, although deviant in its own way. Anybody
who think that in case of troubles China will come to Russia help, because she will be next
target of Washington, might well be a dreamer. On the contrary, Chine might try to corner
Russia in prices of hydrocarbons because of sanctions. The rule of neoliberalism if that if a
country is sinking, help her to sink faster.
This "deviation" from Washington consensus" in the form of more independent foreign policy
and defense of national interests than are allowed by Washington -- the center of global
neoliberal empire is what Russia is punished for. All those fake accusation of hacking are
just a convenient pretext. That's why sanctions legislation enjoyed such a majority in
Congress -- the country that challenges the US dominance in global neoliberal empire should be
destroyed.
That means that Russia should be very careful not to overreact as trump cards in this
geopolitical game are still in the USA hands. Especially in high technology.
Washington is spoiling for a fight. They failed with the attempt of color revolution in
Russia in 2012. After that setback they organized coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. Just
watch how they will try to derail Putin during the next elections. All means are good or
them.
It is time to speak the obvious: Cold War 2.0 is officially on. Though this Cold War is
different and possibly far more dangerous. The world is in uncharted waters as the Trump
White House attempts to find its footing.
CrossTalking with Edward Lozansky, Mark Sleboda, and Vladimir Golstein.
US Senate has voted on the bill containing a package of sanctions against Russia, Iran and North
Korea. The senators have taken on great responsibility because Moscow is not going to watch the hostile
action idly, it will respond. The retaliatory measures will be felt.
As Russia's Foreign Ministry announced on July 28, the decision has been taken to seize the Serebryany
Bor diplomatic compound in north-west Moscow as well as the embassy's warehouse in a tit-for-tat
move. A total of 35 diplomats will be sent home. The embassy staff must be reduced to 455 – the level
of Russia embassy staff in Washington.
If President Trump signs the bill into law, it'll be hard to imagine Moscow cooperating with the
US in the UN Security Council on the draft resolution sanctions to punish North Korea. Washington
may need the Russia's support badly pretty soon.
The US space research programs will suffer a severe blow deprived of Russia RD-180 and RD-181
rocket engines they so much depend on. NASA's Atlas 5 rocket launches will be suspended.
The export portfolio of JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX) includes 25 contracts with a total value
of about $6.5 billion concluded with 19 US companies with the supply perspectives until 2028.
The volume of the agreed supplies of Russian uranium products (that is 20% of annual reactor needs
at the US nuclear power plants) is 95% used. There are few actors on the world market who could
substitute the Russian supplies and it takes time and effort to make new deals, if it possible
at all.
VSMPO-AVISMA is the world's largest manufacturer of titanium products and the Russian supplier
of titanium to Boeing and other US aerospace companies. It accounts for about a half of all titanium
imported by the United States and over a third (35%) of titanium consumed by Boeing. The American
company has investments in Russia. It has been in the country for decades. About five years ago,
it announced plans to
invest $27 billion over the
next 30 years. In 2014, VSMPO and Boeing had signed an extension of the supply contract for
titanium sheet to 2022.
VSMPO-AVISMA has no competitors in the world and can easily find other customers. The US partners
will face a very serious problem unable to find an alternative. The suspension of titanium supplies
from Russia would damage the US defense industry capabilities.
American companies operating in Russia could be targeted. They risk suffering
heavy losses , especially energy giants and banking conglomerates. For instance, Caterpillar
could lose orders for heavy equipment needed to build pipelines and other construction projects.
US high-tech companies may be prevented from working with Russian counterparts – something they are
interested in.
The issue fits into a larger geopolitical pattern. The
EU reaction makes it a pro-Russian bill, pushing Europe away from the United States to Russia.
Europeans get more evidence to see that Washington's high-fallutin' harangues about Atlantic solidarity
are the way to promote its selfish interests. The differences between the United States and the EU
undermine the G7's unity regarding Russia. The countries agreed on the link between the Minsk accords
and the sanctions. Now the US is going unilateral, provoking Europeans into continuing with the North
Stream 2 project to defy America and, thus, benefit Russia. According to Europeans, "America First"
should not be a synonym for "Europe second" or "Europe irrelevant".
According to Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, this bill "will
not achieve its objectives and will instead cause new problems. Unless it undergoes significant revision,
it would compromise European energy security and damage US relations with Europe. The beneficiary
of such an outcome would be Russia". According to Ischinger, the North Stream-2 issue "is not a question
that should be decided in Washington. It is a European issue, to be decided by Europeans based on
European law and regulation". The expert believes that signed into law, the legislation would "tip
the scales in favor of those who want to end Europe's participation in the existing trans-Atlantic
policy approach on Russia, including the sanctions regime. If the president signs the bill in its
current form, it would alienate America's important complicating our alliance at a critical moment".
So, in an effort to strike Russia the US Congress has targeted Europe and NATO solidarity.
The fraying US-Russia ties will entail fraying arms control relationship. The "Russia sanctions
bill" is not the only legislation expected to become law if Presidents Trump signs it. The proposed
defense budget for 2018 has taken aim at the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, as well
as the Open Skies and even New START treaties. Becoming law, it would deal a major blow to the US-Russia
arms-control architecture. Russia would have no choice but respond. This would lead to arms race.
If the US provokes the termination of the INF Treaty, it will greatly spoil its relations with the
European allies. Is it wise to develop an intermediate range missile nobody wants on its soil?
President Trump has also ordered a major review of US nuclear policy, a common move by new administrations.
The mission is impossible without making clear if the US has arms control arguments with Russia in
force or not. No clarity on the issue would greatly complicate military planning in general.
Russia can and will deal a heavy blow in response to the US "sanctions bill". Unlike Iran or North
Korea, it can do it. This ability should not be underestimated by the president who intends to sign
the bill into law. Too many times have US experts and lawmakers made calculations about how much
the measures will hurt Russia without assessing the damage America will inflict on itself.
"... Diane Johnstone peels back the way the sanctions applied by the USA are likely to be the suicide note for the USD as reserve currency: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/collateral-damage-u-s-sanctions-aimed-at-russia-strike-western-european-allies/ ..."
"... at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status, and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about choices and how it means freedom if you have them? ..."
"... I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union backed by gold. ..."
"... A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat currency like the greenback. ..."
Thanks so much for that! I seem to have revealed my ignorance by asking rhetorically, earlier;
"Why don't countries ordered to pay huge fines to the USA simply tell Uncle Sam to ram it up his
chuff, sideways?" After all, the USA has no authority to find the financial institutions of other
sovereign nations guilty of corruption, and order them to pay huge fines to the United States
– it's highway robbery. But now we get down to the nub of it – because of the dollar's status
as international reserve currency.
I have been saying for years that it is time for the world to dump the dollar as reserve currency,
and maybe this time it will really happen. Oh, just as
the
reserve currency – the dollar
will likely always be reserve currency, owing to the global importance of the American economy.
But
at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging
his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status,
and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although
there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason
countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about
choices and how it means freedom if you have them?
I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to
say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union
backed by gold.
Because although the United States is supposed to have the world's biggest
gold reserves, I think many share my belief that that is all just on paper, and they really don't
have more than a quarter what they say they have, perhaps less. They certainly go out of their
way to squash any country which proposes trading in gold, as they did Libya and Iraq. Well, Iraq's
crime was more a state-led drive to dump the greenback than it was a shift to gold, but it seemed
to have the same effect.
A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult
position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat
currency like the greenback.
"... I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded - quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement. ..."
"... So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is signatory to, I agreed. ..."
The
Russia-sanctions train appears to be accelerating out of the congressional station, which makes
it highly unlikely that both chambers of the Legislative Branch will want to revisit its provisions,
especially when escape from Washington's heat beckons with the forthcoming summer recess. Nevertheless,
it behooves members of Congress, if they are
determined to continue with this course of action (and the absolute majorities voting in favor
of different versions of the sanctions in both the House of Representatives and Senate, far above
the number needed to override any possible presidential veto), to take a pause and consider some
changes.
Agree. This is the same open-ended congressional stupidity as the AUMF, (unbounded perpetual
war).
Russia will NEVER cede back Crimea. In that context, Congress has just baked in perpetuity
Cold War II with Russia. And Trump with his feckless stupidity is all in. At a time when the obsolescent
and unaffordable America as Global Cop model is unwinding.
I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded
- quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement.
So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation
of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is
signatory to, I agreed.
Is this more of the same? That seems a statistical probability.
The Real Reason for Sanctions? Stubborn Russia Won't Surrender Its Sovereignty
Regime change may not be the main aim of US sanctions against Russia!but it certainly fits the
pattern
Paul Goncharoff
10
In the 20th century, the use of sanctions as punitive policy became more and more popular. Franklin
Roosevelt tried sanctions on Japan in 1940. Dwight Eisenhower imposed them on Britain (Suez) in 1956.
Jimmy Carter smacked them on the Soviet Union after its invasion (by invitation) of Afghanistan in
1980 with a wheat embargo and an Olympic boycott. Reagan used them to protest martial law in Poland.
Congress also began to see the ease of using sanctions as a cheap way of expressing a hissy fit.
In 1996, for example, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Vanuatu and Venezuela
all were sanctioned to one or another degree by the US for their historic relations with whales and/or
dolphins. All told, it is estimated that sanctions were used in less than 25 instances during the
20
th
century. Since then America has imposed more than 80 new sanctions on foreign independent,
sovereign countries.
Sanctions make for headlines that show political "action", they have a feel-good aura and allow
politicians to feel they are being seen and headlined as doing something. Sanctions are less wimpy
than word spanking an ambassador and less gory than sending in the marines. They afford immediate
satisfaction of work in progress, despite the annoying details of collateral damage. The alleged
Russian violations of international norms resulted in a sanctions regime progressively imposed upon
Russia. However, various legal and political scholars regard sanction regimes as basic material coercion
and therefore irreconcilable with international law.
Regime change may not be the main aim of sanctions, or the norm, although it seems to fit the
pattern. The morality of punishing the citizens of a foreign sovereign nation is worth a thought.
It seems a kinky way to win hearts and minds. No wonder that sanctions, especially unilaterally imposed
ones like America's long standing on again – off again ban on trade with Cuba, Libya, Iran, or amped
up sanctions against Russia might also understandably cause friction among one's own allies.
Under current sanctions the export value from Russia to the United States for the first 5 months
of 2017 amounted to $3.9 billion, while import value for the same period was $4.8 billion, a negative
trade balance for Russia. The total volume of trade between Russia and the United States has been
declining since 2014. In 2016, the total volume amounted to $19.9 billion, which is a drop from $29.1
billion in 2014. The 28-country EU during this same period recorded its greatest increase of trade
with Russia, which overtook Switzerland as the third main source of imports for the EU. Despite western
economic sanctions imposed after Crimea voted to integrate with the Russian Federation, EU exports
to Russia grew 24.6 percent between January and May, driven by manufactured goods and machinery,
while imports, composed principally of oil and gas, surged by 37.6 percent. This illustrates that
change too is reality; perceptions and assessments move on and develop. Perceptions within the EU
have certainly moved on from the emotional propaganda of 2014, to a more realistic view of what is
happening in Ukraine today. It would be common sense if some thought were given right from the start
to defining a clear mechanism for ending sanctions; they are easier to impose than to lift, and the
sanctioned regime is unlikely to make even small concessions if these are not greeted with some quid
pro quo. In any event, after years of ritual sanctioning for example the decade's long 'Jackson-Vannick'
cork. Eventually fatigue sets in and the sanctioned state of affairs becomes the new normal. It can
even be ended, then re-branded, say to 'Magnitsky' yet the band plays on.
The fashion today is "smart" sanctions, which try to isolate and hurt the elites of a country
and not the collateralized populations. This is most often viewed by their citizenry as an insult
to their nation and tends to raise a consolidating grass roots patriotic response irrespective of
their brand of democratic flavor.
It is troubling that those who support and impose sanctions offer only the vaguest explanations
of how they expect the imposition of economic pain to result in political gain. If one recalls the
1990's and Iraq when Western ambassadors declared that
sanctions should aim to harm the Iraqi
population
thereby forcing Saddam Hussein to heel. At that time the then US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright said that 500,000 children's deaths were 'worth it'. Excepting for the fact
that this humanitarian disaster due to sanctions and its collateral damage did not unseat the Iraqi
regime as envisioned. The ensuing 'smart' war did.
By dreaming up and using "smart" or "targeted" sanctions as ways to affect those perceived as
directly responsible for disagreeing with the current status-quo, or today's flavor of what is 'normal'
usually involve financial restrictions, travel bans and other inconveniences targeted at a few dozen
to a few hundred individuals, companies or government entities. While it may sound like it could
work, it is equally naïve. It assumes that target governments are driven entirely by the preferences
of a small cabal of individuals, and that messing with their lifestyle perquisites will result in
policy change. This is patently absurd, and in spite of MSM reports that may differ, even governments
of an authoritarian lean are based on coalitions of social and political forces – which are often
extremely broad, and shape what those governments can and cannot do.
High time a realistic assessment is made as to the quite limited capacities, not to mention legalities
of engineering social and political outcomes in other sovereign governments. We need to fully appreciate
the coalitions underpinning existing sovereign governments and those who are promoting alternatives
to elected governments before embarking merrily on regime-change plots. It makes sense to consider
how sanctions will affect these different groups and the conflicts/struggles between them. We need
to be able definitively make the case of how imposing economic pain is likely to lead to changes
we expect are being looked for, and whether in fact such changes are in anyone's national, economic,
cultural or humanitarian interests.
These very basic assessments unsurprisingly are not being made by any state or international organization
currently deploying sanctions. Sanctions therefore are being imposed based on fuzzy wishful thinking
and not on defined outcomes. Given the real and often severe damage inflicted on target societies,
that is highly irresponsible, frequently counter-productive, not legally justifiable and, for a policy
often justified by appealing to some brand of morality, is simply unethical.
"... The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated. Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived insults from the United States... ..."
"... Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. ..."
"... Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal, according to international law. ..."
"... The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket does not mean it's gonna be forever. ..."
"... Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life. ..."
"... ...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine will never comply. ..."
"... The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways ..."
"... Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to 455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence Russian election. ..."
"... The real reason for all this is to increase American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe. ..."
"... Once the US loses its dollar as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket, severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time... ..."
"... It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses. ..."
"... Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed the sanctions? ..."
"... It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats, election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war). ..."
"... Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo - her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media ..."
"... reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT). ..."
"... America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan, etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli land grabs in the Golan and so on. ..."
"... Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. .. ..."
The surprise about the Russian Foreign Ministry's announcement of Russian sanctions on U.S. diplomats
and embassy properties is that they did not come sooner. The usual practice during the Cold War and
after was that any diplomatic expulsion on either side was met with a symmetrical response. Indeed,
in December, after the Obama administration expelled thirty-five Russian diplomats and closed down
two embassy compounds to punish
Russia
for its interference in the 2016 election, Foreign Minister Lavrov appeared the next day
on television brandishing a list of thirty-five American diplomats whom he advised President Putin
to expel. But Putin surprised the world by announcing, "While we reserve the right to take reciprocal
measures, we're not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy."
Clearly the Kremlin believed that once President Trump took office the sanctions would be rescinded
and relations would improve, so why not be magnanimous?
...The
downturn in relations
is largely for domestic reasons on both sides. The incessant stream of
investigations into ties between the U.S. president's family and close advisors and different Russian
individuals!plus the 2016 election!has made Russia
a toxic subject
in Washington, DC. In an unusual alliance between congressional Republicans and
Democrats, the Senate passed by 98–2 a bill codifying and expanding existing sanctions, which were
initially imposed under Obama after the annexation of Crimea by executive order, because they want
to remove from Trump the ability to lift these sanctions unilaterally. Congress would now have to
approve any modification of the sanctions regime. This kind of legislation is a blunt instrument.
Once passed, as the history of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment shows (it remained in place for thirty-eight
years), it will probably stay on the books for longer than necessary and remove the
flexibility and leverage
that a president could have in dealing with Russia.
Domestic factors have also influenced Russia's response. Russian nationalism has become a potent
force. Putin faces re-election in March and, while his popularity remains high, his appeal rests
largely on his foreign-policy accomplishments, showing that Russia is a respected world power and
that he is a strong leader.
The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the
Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated.
Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived
insults from the United States...
...The U.S. sanctions bill, designed to hurt Russia, may have unintended consequences for the
United States. As currently written, it will not only continue to penalize Russia but will also penalize
American and European businesses because of its restrictions on energy projects that involve Russian
companies. Specifically, the bill seeks to prevent the construction of the Nord Stream Two gas pipeline
that would export Russian gas under the Baltic Sea to Europe. Germany supports the pipeline as the
most cost-effective way to meet future gas demand, as do most,but certainly not all, of its EU partners.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has warned that the sanction bill "could
have unintended unilateral effects that impact the EU's energy security interests." He added that
"if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within
a matter of days."
Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda
behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe.
Some EU officials have
warned that the EU may rethink its own sanctions regime, carefully designed with the Obama administration,
if the United States moves forward with the bill. This, of course, would be good news for the Kremlin.
"The irony, of course, is that Russia has brought this upon itself through its actions in Ukraine
and during the U.S. election campaign."
The irony is that the author does not see (or pretends not to see) that the US does the same thing
(and even worse).
Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much
influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal,
according to international law.
I'm not even gonna count how many countries were bombed "in
the name of democracy", which is also illegal.
The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket
does not mean it's gonna be forever.
Exactly correct. How many times did the US interfere by installing friendly Juntas, in south
and middle America? Several dozen times? The various "Color Revolutions" financed with US money
to add former soviet states the EU/US/NATO orbit, so the EU could sell goods and services to them
instead of Russia, and so NATO could supply them with arms instead of Russia?
Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding
to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life.
Russia peacefully annexed Crimea AFTER the vast majority of the Crimean population voted for
it, including many Ukrainians and some Tartars living in Crimea; population 65% ethnic Russian,
25% Ukrainian, 10% Tartar.
Every time we (USA) do something based on lies and propaganda is a good news for Russia. Which
is exactly how every time Soviet Union did something based on lies and propaganda was a good news
for USA.
Also, how funny ... most of establishment politicians in USA keep pointing out a Russian "annexation"
of Crimea. Yet, none of them have any problem with Bill Clinton using military force, bombing
Yugoslavia for 70 days and recognizing independence of Kosovo. Let me just remind you which laws
and chapters BiIl Clinton violated: USA Constitution, NATO chapter, Helsinki agreement, War Powers
resolution ...
....and UN Res. 1244 but that was just a convenience to wipe the egg off of Clinton's face
on day 78, AFTER he himself insisted on pushing it through.
...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous
Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it
to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine
will never comply.
The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways
,
Well, once Russia starts writing larger checks than Riyadh is writing today the US politicians
will suddenly "discover a discrepancy" - until then we'll have a (unjust) status quo. "FOLLOW
THE MONEY"!
Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to
455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover
this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence
Russian election.
murrican hypocrisy knows no bounds. Whatever they accuse others of they do worse, but there
is no proof their accusations have any factual basis, only hoping that 100 times repeated lie
becomes fact. USA the nazi-like empire, where facts don't matter as much as wishful thinking.
Good post, and most of what you said is true.
The real reason for all this is to increase
American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made
in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy
to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically
this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe.
Knock yourself out, Boris. You may see yourself in competition with the US, but there really
is no competition. You will return to the failed Soviet policies, and we will continue to advance.
And our debt is already so large that we cannot even pay the interest on it if interest rates
were to rise to what they were in the Jimmy Carter Administration. We are a failed nation unless
we can keep interest rates low.
30 year Treasuries yield indicates that the market is not freakinf out. And under the current
interest rates servicing the debt is cheaper than under Reagan
You will care, among every one else who lives in the USofA.
Once the US loses its dollar
as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase
foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket,
severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time...
It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because
this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses.
That debt out there keeps the world under control. It is the greenback in your pocket, but
it's not worth anything. Every currency traded on the open market works the same way. What matter
is debt to GDP, and ours is fairly low still. Japan has ten times the debt to GDP ratio. The yen
is still worth money.
Certainly, we have been printing money for a long time. Other nations could not get away with
such practices as hyper inflation would surely follow. The fact that the US controls the IMF,
World Bank and, pretty much the world's money supply, allows us to set the interest rates to artificially
ridiculously low levels in order to service our outstanding debt levels with minimum costs. If/when
the US dollar loses its special status to a basket of international currencies we'll lose our
ability to set conditions for the world financial markets.
That is why the emerging Chinese-led BRICS banking system appears to be a deadly threat to
the US economy and, in turn, to its world hegemony.
Just this week CIA head, Mike Pompeo, declared China as the #1 threat to the US. When asked,
he further indicated that it was the Chinese economic progress that threatened the US. Christine
Legarde, head of IMF, backed this up by predicting that the IMF could move to Bejing within 5
years. The writings are on the wall....
Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security
and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed
the sanctions?
Also Russia is the best supplier of natural gas to the EU. In fact it's so good that the Congress
tries to use dirty tricks that might delay Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
You are right the US is in no position to compete with Russia, hence the hysteria in American
establishment.
Intelligent talking points met with sophomoric cookie cutter drivel. That's the extent of your
understanding of the universe I'm afraid.
It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting
supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that
matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats,
election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless
sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war).
You reap what you sow, kiddo. No excuses. Problem is, they drag most Americans into it with
no true understanding of their motives or the consequences. It's THEY who should be sanctioned.
Quarantined, even better.
The irony, dear author, is...that the US, just as it did in Syria by arming salafist jihadis
to pressure Assad to step down and turned Syria into a nightmare, it fomented, backed, trained
and financed the European banderite-fascist equivalent of Middle Eastern salafist jihadis to overthrow
a duly-elected, OSCE sanctioned president and instead of insisting new elections occur in six
months time as the EU had so laboriously negotiated, subverted democracy in the name of hegemonic
dreams, shot itself in the foot, slipped in its own poo, hoisted itself by its own petard, singlehandedly
resurrected the cold war and worse and still can't come to grips with its own culpability in it
all.
Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo -
her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is
just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media
Ask Sessions. I suppose he should just emulate the democrats and their neocon cohorts by building
cases on innuendo and speculation provided by a coterie of 'anonymous sources' and no proof of
consequence and have their faithful media editors redact any news to the contrary.
A free press does not mean the freedom to press your agenda by any and all means available,
in case you weren't aware.
I regret that I have to give you rudimentary lessons in civics but apparently, someone has
to.
Messing in your politics ? You were supposed to vote in Hitlery and you got Trump. These politicians
mean that meddling is having RT and Sputnik in English so you can form an opinion different than
ordained by the deep state oligarchy. They want to punish you for not having Hitlery as president.
It is very disturbing when a warmoínger, mass murderer, friend of now slain Al-Baghdadi who is
photographed with McCain is somehow a positive person. USA is trying to meddle in politics of
each country because they think might makes right. If EU peoples throw your NATO out and become
independent, no more US vassals, seeking their own interests not US first EU last, because USA
is the land of evil and of corruption to the bone. Your evil drives sane people from you. The
wicked love you, the sane are disgusted. Nobody likes imperialist yanks. Nobody likes their terrorist
friends. No Obama or Trump or swamp.
The million barrels question is how prevent american messing in the rest of the world's politics
and elections... Which punishment to DC regime would be enough to bring freedom to the world?
The US Embargo Act of 1807 did great damage to Northeast shipping interests, and commerce more
generally. However, it became a huge boost to Northeast manufacturing interests. The US economy
diversified, and new businesses were established to do what had been imported. Prices were higher
at first, and quality was down at first, but the Embargo Act effectively protected the start up
of the US post-colonial economy.
Western experts have long maintained that Russia needs to diversify its economy, away from
exports of oil, gas, and raw materials, into the sort of manufacturing that would displace imports.
That is harder for Putin to control and loot, and generally a lot harder to do than Putin's political
machine has been able to do.
Now we are in effect giving them that. We've imposed on them their Embargo Act advantage, and
are forcing them to do what we know they should do to be stronger against us.
This may hurt them in the short term, but it will hurt us in the long term, and we've been
saying this for a long time now.
Quite true. The Russian farmers are going to erect a statue of Obama for the sanctions which
greatly boosted the Russian agriculture by restricting import. The same effect will be on the
industrial production. The only class in Russia who will lose on that are the local Compradors
doing business on import and promoting the foreign control over the Russian market,
reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which
was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT).
America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan,
etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care
about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia
and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus
and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli
land grabs in the Golan and so on.
Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because
Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds
with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. ..
The rule of law and corruption have consistently improved under Putin, who reformed an oligarchic
state into a illiberal democracy WITH corruption problems (understandable after 70 years of Soviet
mismanagement and a decade of robber baron capitalism - eliminating social habits takes time).
The worst nightmare for the US is actually a Russia free of corruption.
"... Of course they are; and it's so bloody transparent that nobody is fooled. Please check the link below: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/eu-ready-retaliate-if-us-imposes-new-russia-sanctions/ri20467 ..."
"... The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out ..."
"... The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation. Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely dependent on an ignorant U.S. population. ..."
"... Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will be shocked to find they aren't well received. ..."
"... I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever part of the Russian society and economy and land they like. ..."
"... I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians. Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit. ..."
The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan
attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin
is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to
have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out
I dare say, Russia is more self sufficient than the U.S. and almost every other country on
the planet. Do the research; it's very enlightening.
The U.S. is a very jealous hegemon and can't bear this reality
Have you ever thought to question your comparitive references? Most views of Russia are western-centric
in the extreme. Russia is not western or European in any sense of that reality; Russia is a very
different culture/s and sees things drastically different than the western-centric POV. Just sayin
The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation.
Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely
dependent on an ignorant U.S. population.
Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations
to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political
structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will
be shocked to find they aren't well received.
I'm confused. Who was it who brought up "Russia is more self-sufficient than the US
and almost every other country on the planet? That implies that you feel self-sufficiency (with
respect to certain metrics) is something that one should value. Let's say other people do not
share that meta value: does that then mean they are wrong?
I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just
think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever
part of the Russian society and economy and land they like.
I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking
was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians.
Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit.
It's looking like quite the little diplomatic spat between the EU and Capitol Hill.
Here's the Russian envoy to the EU on talks to ban funding by EU banks for US business, if
the US law is declared invalid in the EU : http://tass.com/politics/957927
Note the bill bans not just business with Russians in Europe, but also Eurasia.
OBOR is clearly a target too.
So are the Chinese going to pipe up?
For this is nothing less than gloves – off imperialism .
Anyone know if it's possible the German's will act w/o the EU? In other words, unilaterally?
I'm asking because the article says EU may not be the "required" unanimous in responding to
the U.S. sanctions & LNG so there may not be an official EU retaliation (though it seems there
was much stronger opposition to the EU imposing Russian sanctions in 2014 in the first place but
supposedly that was a "unanimous" decision).
Will Germany be a total puppet to the U.S.? Or might it start to move towards Russia which
seems to be in Germany's business interest?
Germany wants to ensure stable gas supply for as long as possible. A pipeline thas goes through
the sea and does not depend on third countries that migth disconnect the pipeline (like Ukrania)
allows for a durable contract. So the US is not only intefering with russian interests but with
german ones. I don't think Germany considers US shale LNG supply a robust enough alternative competitive
in price and duration with russian gas. My guess is that in this case, Germany won't be a total
puppet.
Anti Schmoo put it very well "The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant"
EU has been following every global US initiative enthusiastically even though it only hurts
Europeans: wars and invasions, TTIP, TiSA, CETA etc.
On top of being emasculated and spineless with regards to national and continental interests
the current leaders of EU are neoliberals so they don't care about a new 'market solution' for
gas. Will subsidize the higher prices for companies while the citizens pay the price.
:) q.v. Frank Herbert's very old novel The Dragon in the Sea (aka Under Pressure
.) Being by Frank Herbert, it's about psychology, but it's also about petroleum pirating by submarine.
Yeah, I guess the price per barrel must have been pretty high.
The pipelines that go under the sea have lower capacities. They work to reduce the impact of
ukrainians et al blackmailing gas supplies. They do not eliminate the need to route gas overland.
He's an opportunitist and may advocate something one day and oppose it the next day.
He is absolutely not trustworthy. A total pushover.
And I wouldn't expect much from the rest of the german government, too.
The german media could pick it up and put pressure on politicians.
But due to the pathetic state the germain mainstream media are in (with exceptions),
I expect they'll just stop bringing up this issue and let people forget about it.
Maybe other european countries will be more resistant, maybe
Plus Japan -- a big LNG importer historically as it has no conventional energy sources of its
own -- is going to lessen its LNG demand as the
nuclear restart gathers pace. Whatever you might think of the safety aspects, Japan has 50+gW
of embedded nuclear generating capacity with a residual economic life of 20+ years on average.
It is simply inconceivable that this plant, much of which, unlike Fukushima which was end-of-life,
is mid-life and has decades of viable reactor runtimes available, will be mothballed and decommissioned
without generating another kW of power ever again.
The LNG glut will only continue and probably get noticeably worse once all, or at least the
vast majority, of Japanese reactors are brought back on line, which will be 5 years from now at
the outer limit. Cutting off Russian gas into Europe (and the rest of the world) will be a big
plus for the US. LNG liquefaction plant is a massive capital outlay, has big fixed costs
and is highly operationally geared, so even small reductions below peak output have a big hit
on plant profitability. It is those "wheels" the US plant operators will want to keep turning.
Conversely, the regasification plants (based in EU countries) don't need to operate flat out,
they're designed to have peaks and troughs as LNG consignments come in and get processed, then
sit around for a bit waiting for the next one. Which, again, is why the US is bothered about restricting
Russian supply, the EU not so much.
there is no surplus US LNG to be forced on Europe, it's a myth we are still importing more
natural gas from Canada than we are exporting to Mexico and liquifying for export moreover, our
own natural gas production has been falling year over year for 15 months straight i wrote about
exactly this situation two weeks ago:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/great-us-natural-gas-exports-myth-6112
all the data is included. you can repost it if you want.
we are contracting to sell US natural gas at below the cost of US production, and it's gonna come
back and bite US natgas users big time when a shortage develops here..
IS natgas users would be anyone who uses American electricity, right? Another 'regressive'
tax on the way. Really, this is not New Cold War oriented, but Class War materiel.
Time for work.
there's been a gradual shift back to coal for generating over the past half year or so whether
that's because of price or because the utilities see what's coming i couldn't tell you..
maybe i'm projecting too much, but i see us heading down the same path that Australia took
How energy-rich Australia exported its way into an energy crisis - Australia exported 62%
of its gas production last year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Yet its
policy makers didn't ensure enough gas would remain at home. As exports increased from new LNG
facilities in eastern Australia, some state governments let aging coal plants close and accelerated
a push toward renewable energy for environmental concerns. That left the regions more reliant
on gas for power, especially when intermittent sources such as wind and solar weren't sufficient.
Shortages drove domestic gas prices earlier this year in some markets in eastern
Australia
to as high as $17 per million British thermal units for smaller gas users such as manufacturers.
On the spot market, gas prices have gone from below $1 in 2014 to roughly $7 today .. In
March, Australia's largest aluminum smelter cut production and laid off workers because it said
it couldn't secure enough cheap energy.
the problem is that we are are contracting to export natural gas at today's low prices, which
wont pay for tomorrow's production..
The U.S. much like Team Blue hid behind our "cool" President and 9/11 for so long, no one knows
how to act. This is a trade war where we picked a fight with our most loyal vassals on behalf
of one industry which needs to be replaced anyway. Do you remember Hollande? He joined with Obama
against "OMG Russia." Macron's honey moon is over.
Due to resignations early in the Trump administration, and refusal of the Senate to approve
new FERC nominees, the FERC, whose approval is needed for building interstate energy transport
infrastructure, now lacks a quorum (having only 1 of the minimum 3 members out of 5 total). A
number of pipeline projects originating in marcellus were approved around end of 2016 prior to
the resignations, and are due to come on line in 2018, but many dozens more are now awaiting permitting -- both for domestic use and to transport to LNG export, as the piece above states.
The other interesting thing is that in the past, the explicit strategy of the US was to use
domestic natgas domestically, but no longer, it seems.
Pipelines would raise prices at the wellhead and lower prices elsewhere in the country. If
the lack of approval goes on for a few more years, it may have an impact on: the battle between
natgas and wind for the medium-term dominance of newly added utility scale electric generation
in the US, and the timing of how fast we can retire coal electric.
Lastly, besides Russia, Qatar is also a major natgas exporter to Europe, so they'll get their
gas either way, they'll just pay more. A points of reference there -- I belive Germany is currently
using coal as its main domestic baseload electric fuel – as prices were relatively high until
recently, they're using NG for home heating only. Now everyone needs to retire coal for obvious
reasons.
Jamming up FERC shouldn't be underestimated. They've got a huge amount of discretionary authority
to blast through state and local laws and regulations at will. It's amazing how the oil/gas industry
gets 1-stop shopping for all it's regulatory requirements.
It's sickening to see how much power the Petroleum companies have over Congress. Bribes work
well in our country. We need a wholesale re-haul of CON gress.
Regarding possible EU development of a spine, a recent George Webb video from just about 3
days ago said he's been told by some of his IC sources that Germany has been printing DMs on the
quiet. I take this with a pinch of salt but it's intriguing nonetheless. If true, Germany must
also be looking at the IT issue as well.
EU is still threatening to cancel Poland voting rights for 1 year, even after the President
vetoed the legislation regarding judiciary reform (which was to my understanding the main bone,
albeit the country is keen on going full Adolph). Maybe it has something to do with this?
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
Did you suggest it at the time? The newsflow is a gusher right now. It's simply not possible
to give notice to everything. So do feel free to stifle your amazement.
Adding, it is a very good story (although I'm not a Russia hand). So readers may enjoy it even
at this late date which was, I take it, the real point of your comment.
Plus the assertion of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election was never proven–it was only
asserted and repeated ad nauseum. Recent investigations have shown that in fact the DNC and Podesta
emails were insider leaks, they were not outsider hacks. The technical analysis showed evidence
that Russian "footprints" had been specifically inserted to cause Russia to be blamed.
In contrast the US has a well-established track record of meddling in other countries elections
and setting up regime change in various ways. Ukraine is one example, as Yves described. There
are many others, think of the US-sponsored coups in Latin America. They seem to be trying to pull
off another coup in Venezuela since their 2002 attempt didn't work out. And Obama didn't hesitate
to publicly endorse Macron just a couple days before the French election.
"the latest US sanctions against Russia, which passed the House today by a 419-3 margin ".
and
"Republicans and Democrats agreed almost unanimously, by 97 votes to 2 , to impose new sanctions
on Russia in the Senate on Wednesday"
I have been a member of many organizations, and do not recall seeing this kind of "unanimity"
when voting on significant and controversial resolutions. Clearly, a majority of US Americans
want peace, particularly with Russia (a Christian democracy). How and why did the People's Representatives/Senators
find the "courage" to vote against the People's wishes??? Hmmmmmmmm?
To put the vote into a context, 77 years ago; on
" ..July 14–15, 1940 – Rigged elections held in Latvia and the other Baltic states. Only one
pre-approved list of candidates was allowed for elections for the "People's Parliament". The ballots
held following instructions: "Only the list of the Latvian Working People's Bloc must be deposited
in the ballot box. The ballot must be deposited without any changes." The alleged voter activity
index was 97.6% . Most notably, the complete election results were published in Moscow 12 hours
before the election closed. Soviet electoral documents found later substantiated that the results
were completely fabricated. Tribunals were set up to punish "traitors to the people." those who
had fallen short of the "political duty" of voting Latvia into the USSR. Those who failed to have
their passports stamped for so voting were allowed to be shot in the back of the head.
July 21, 1940 – The fraudulently installed Saeima meets for the first time. It has only one
piece of business!a petition to join the Soviet Union. (The consideration of such an action was
denied throughout the election.) The petition carried unanimously. .."
Read Petrodollar Warfare and The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony for a start and a lot of
this will become more clear. The Iraq war, the U.S. instigated coup in Ukraine, U.S. backed attempt
at regime change in Syria and the demonization of Russia all concern oil supplies and who will
be allowed to supply what to whom, and more importantly in what currency such sales will be denominated.
All of this stuff is about trying to maintain the dollar's reserve currency status. Isn't this
becoming clear by now. Americans are still trying to understand why they invaded Iraq. Was it
WMDs, Al Qaeda, to bring freedom and democracy to the towel heads? Hussein decided in 2000 that
Iraqi oil sales would be denominated in Euros, three years later he was conveniently dead.
While I agree that the US has hegemonic aspirations, the petrodollar thesis is all wet.
Since the 1600s at least, countries have pursued mercantilist policies. That means first of
all that they like running trade surpluses. That allows them to have more jobs than their own
economies would support, keeping their citizens happy. They can also be net savers without having
a drag on the domestic economy.
But who will be the chump that exports jobs and has crappy growth to accommodate the mercantlists?
The US has signed up for that role, in large measure because the US cares more about the 1%, the
0.1%, and the interest of US multinationals than its citizens.
As long as everyone else wants to run trade surpluses and we are the only big player willing
to run sustained trade deficits, the dollar will remain the reserve currency. China has absolutely
zero interest in running trade deficits despite pining after the cachet of having the reserve
currency. The Eurozone maybe could have been a contender, but not with Germany being fiercely
mercantlist and Germany's insistence on not rebalancing within the Eurozone creating perceived
breakup risk.
@Yves
In order to answer your question to German language readers in the article.
There are several differences this time compared to previous instances of perhaps controversial
US-policy in Europe.
First of all the official positions of the German and Austrian government as well as the EU-Commission
are in harsh opposition to the bill while previously only opposition politicians or fringe business
interests voiced negative opinions.
Secondly the issue has been spread around in the relevant German business press a great deal,
yesterday alone about a dozen news agency reports were published, all with pretty much the same
tone and content. It has also been picked up by the op-ed pages in the papers today. This is in
stark contrast to previous instances like a leader from Die Linke blaming the refugee crisis on
US wars in 2015, Nato expansion to the east and troop build up in the Baltic or the planned upgrade
of US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. All three topics are out of mainstream discussion
and anyone bringing up a negative opinion, like the mentioned politician from Die Linke, is ridiculed.
Thirdly while the EU needs the approval of all members to establish sanctions it could do a great
deal to prosecute a trade war via executive decisions by the EU-Commission alone. While there
has been no official indication how the threatened retaliation is going to look like several simple
measures come to mind. For instance the EU could suspend the EU-US privacy shield agreement thereby
increasing the cost of doing business in the EU for US companies by a significant amount, it would
also be likely that cartell/market dominance investigations might result in harsher fines for
US companies and more restricted mergers, something which has been brought up by EU officials
sometime ago is to require all foreign or only US banking and maybe other financial institutions
to be seperate concerns with full capitalisation and no dependencies on the US-holdings.
To summarise: it looks like a significant amount of the German "business community" is not
amused and views the bill as a direct attack on its interests and tries to use their influence
with the goverment against it. This raises the likelihood of something more than mere talk to
above 0%. In any case the image of the US has taken another hit, this time with a group of people
with mostly very positive opinions about close US-German relations.
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
"... Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's extremely dangerous. ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries. ..."
"... Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of RootsAction.org , an online activist group. ..."
Whatever you think of Putin or Trump, they're presidents of nuclear superpowers: Opposing view
The drive to put more sanctions on Russia might feel good. But fueling a new Cold War can only
propel the United States in the wrong direction. It's time to turn away from a collision course,
not step on the gas.
Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents
of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's
extremely dangerous.
When this year began, the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists moved its risk-estimate Doomsday Clock closer to apocalyptic midnight
than at any time since 1953. "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions
needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon," the Bulletin 's expert
panel warned.
If new sanctions target Russia, the predictable results will include angry responses from the
Kremlin and more polarized attitudes in both countries -- damaging the prospects for any détente while
boosting a spiral of mutual hostility.
Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both
parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions
bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering
how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries.
On Russia sanctions, applaud Congress
Such a war would be horrific. "A war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals
would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable,"
according to Steven Starr, a former member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility national
board.
In a warning last winter, former Defense secretary William Perry said, "We're going back to the
kind of dangers we had during the Cold War." Those concerns are even more relevant and urgent now:
"We are starting a new Cold War. We seem to be sleepwalking into this
new nuclear arms race ."
While parading for sanctions against Russia, the sleepwalkers on Capitol Hill are endangering
the future of humanity.
Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of
RootsAction.org , an online activist group.
In December, President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two estates, one on
Long Island and one on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, in response to Russia's interference in the presidential
election the month before. Moscow did not respond at that time. it waited till 8 month till the end
of July.
The Russian foreign ministry now demanded that Washington cut its diplomatic presence in Russia
by September to 455 -- the same number Moscow has in the US.
MOSCOW - President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Sunday that 755 American diplomats would be
expelled from Russia by Sept. 1
... ... ...
Speaking in a television interview on the Rossiya 1 network, Mr. Putin said that Russia's patience
in waiting for improved relations with the United States had worn out.
"We waited for quite some time that maybe something will change for the better, had such
hope that the situation will somehow change, but, judging by everything, if it changes, it will
not be soon,"
"... About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness. Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy. As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military, intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests in maintaining enmity with Russia. ..."
About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness.
Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy.
As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with
Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military,
intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests
in maintaining enmity with Russia.
Washington of course refuses to say how many people work at the US Embassy in Russia: state
secret, you know, national security, could affect the lives of Americans. But Tefft is reported
to be not at all happy, while Russian sources say 'hundreds' will have to leave.
Do they know what they are doing? When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly
at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they
realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European "friends"?
Whether they know or not, they obviously don't care. U.S. politicians view the rest of the world
as America's hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July
25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all
but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.
This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to
be America's dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France. Who also sometimes happen
to be competitors, but such crass considerations don't matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress,
totally devoted to upholding universal morality.
Economic "Soft Power" Hits Hard
Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble.
In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline
designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.
By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas
to their German friends, at much higher prices.
That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling
restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.
While the U.S. preaches "free competition", it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition
at the international level.
Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international
sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign
bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group
calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran" which warns that "there remain serious legal, political,
financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors
of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas". The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.)
fines, surveillance by "a myriad of regulatory agencies", personal danger, deficiency of insurance
coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop
in shareholder value.
The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has developed
a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy thanks to the
omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain intimidation.
European leaders reacted indignantly to the latest sanctions. The German foreign ministry said
it was "unacceptable for the United States to use possible sanctions as an instrument to serve the
interest of U.S. industry". The French foreign ministry denounced the "extraterritoriality" of the
U.S. legislation as unlawful, and announced that "To protect ourselves against the extraterritorial
effects of US legislation, we will have to work on adjusting our French and European laws".
In fact, bitter resentment of arrogant U.S. imposition of its own laws on others has been growing
in France, and was the object of a serious parliamentary report delivered to the French National
Assembly foreign affairs and finance committees last October 5, on the subject of "the extraterritoriality
of American legislation".
Extraterritoriality
The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche, summed
up the situation as follows:
"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American legislation
whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic and political
imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always in the United States,
that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the best intentions in the world
since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power', that is a country that can only
do good."
Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the United
States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange American
law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having an American
subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based server, or even
by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion
dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions.
The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But because they dealt in dollars, payments
transited by way of the United States, where diligent computer experts could find the needle in the
haystack. European banks are faced with the choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of
restrictions and punishments before a verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate
lawyers, and entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge
the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.
Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high speed
trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of corruption
(probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its electricity branch
to General Electric.
The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S. firms
to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole range of U.S.
intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are engaged in commercial
espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, devoted to this
task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30 million. The comparable office
in Paris employs five people.
This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose European
banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning investments in the
vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.
This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down national
legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone else for anything,
with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the United States.
Wrecking the European Economy
Over a dozen European Banks (British, German, French, Dutch, Swiss) have run afoul of U.S. judicial
moralizing, compared to only one U.S. bank: JP Morgan Chase.
The U.S. targets the European core countries, while its overwhelming influence in the northern
rim – Poland, the Baltic States and Sweden – prevents the European Union from taking any measures
(necessarily unanimous) contrary to U.S. interests.
By far the biggest catch in Uncle Sam's financial fishing expedition is Deutsche Bank. As Pierre
Lellouche warned during the final hearing of the extraterritorial hearings last October, U.S. pursuits
against Deutsche Bank risk bringing down the whole European banking system. Although it had already
paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the State of New York, Deutsche Bank was faced with a "fine
of 14 billion dollars whereas it is worth only five and a half. In other words, if this is carried
out, we risk a domino effect, a major financial crisis in Europe."
In short, U.S. sanctions amount to a sword of Damocles threatening the economies of the country's
main trading partners. This could be a Pyrrhic victory, or more simply, the blow that kills the goose
that lays the golden eggs. But hurrah, America would be the winner in a field of ruins.
Former justice minister Elisabeth Guigou called the situation shocking, and noted that France
had told the U.S. Embassy that the situation is " insupportable " and insisted that "we
must be firm".
Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and eliminate competitors.
We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."
This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of "taxation
without representation" exercised by the United States against its European satellites. They committee
members all agreed that something must be done.
That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission chairman,
Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth Guigou (a leading
Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to inexperienced newcomers recruited
into President Emmanuel Macron's République en marche party. The newcomers are having a
hard time finding their way in parliamentary life and have no political memory, for instance of the
Rapport on Extraterritoriality.
As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings by
approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the United
States.
However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
LOL! Naïve, I think. As long as European countries (and the UK) are prepared to carry on acting
as Washington's bitches, Washington will go on treating them as such.
The political, media and business elites need to be thoroughly cleansed of US apologists. That
won't be easy, especially when Europe and the UK are in the grip of an ideologically anti-nationalist
culture that is essentially treasonous and utterly lacking in national self-respect.
Ending NATO and suppressing the US-backed anti-Russian propaganda that keeps Europe and the
UK subordinate would be the bare minimum first steps, along with cooperating with China and Russia
to promote and use financial systems independent of the dollar.
or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise
can avoid
The countries that are regularly targeted for US bullying are building structures that avoid
vulnerability. European countries and the UK need to join with them in doing so (though it's unlikely
they will be trusted very far given their track records of collaboration with Washington).
Also companies that decline to deal in the US market should be protected and supported, on
national security grounds. It should be straightforwardly illegal in all sovereign countries for
the US to try to impose its laws on any company merely for dealing in dollars, and the US should
be held directly responsible when its courts seek to do so. US extraterritoriality has always
been a gross intrusion into and threat to national sovereignty.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine
billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S.
sanctions.
Ideally this kind of extortion will be to some extent counterbalanced by retaliatory extractions
from US business assets such as Google and Facebook.
entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers
urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences
The US plea bargain system is a disgrace to any kind of concept of justice and basically means
that no US confessions or guilty pleas can be regarded as meaningful, and nor should any sovereign
country agree to extradition of its own citizens to the US. It is basically a system of organised
blackmail, coerced confessions and corruption of witnesses.
Well, Europe could consider all of these payouts to the US as "reparations for Nazi atrocities".
This will make it go down easier, after all who wouldn't want to enslave himself to Yankees to
repair Nazi atrocities?
"... The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."*** ..."
"... By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards. ..."
"... "The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining." ..."
"... All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy ..."
"... American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm to sell. ..."
"... As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away, one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game. ..."
"... It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in gross violation of WTO rules as well. ..."
"The new sanctions expose the essential issues behind the "election hacking" campaign of
the US media and political establishment, spearheaded by the intelligence agencies that are
opposed to any shift away from the anti-Russia policy developed under the Obama
administration.
****
The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from
Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly
control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."***
"One key question now is how Europe will react," Sir Lyne says. "Over Ukraine, the US and
EU marched in step. That is not the case now; and the new bill has the potential to make
Europe pay a much higher price than the US."
The EU has never been more dependent on Russian gas, according to Bloomberg, as Russia's
state-run gas monopoly Gazprom now pumps over a third (34 percent) of Russia's gas. At
present, Gazprom has put the kibosh on one pipeline to the EU, known as South Stream but
agreed one that will bring gas on the EU's borders, to Turkey.
By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to
northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all
signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards.
Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, Austria's OMV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper
and Wintershall have agreed to work with Gazprom on the pipeline, collectively covering
around half of the nearly $11 billion cost.
The European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker warned Wednesday that Brussels needs
to act "within days" if the U.S. does provide Europe with reassurance that the sanctions will
not jeopardize EU interests. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity told
European news site EUobserver, that the European companies would likely not be punished by
the U.S. as part of the sanctions but called the situation a "risk" regardless.
"The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach
between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining."
All the europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
Of course that is not going to happen, at least not publicly – there will be no
outward sign of European rebellion, because that would be 'playing into Putin's hands', and
the European elite still loathes Putin enough to not want to be seen doing that. At the same
time, Uncle Sam does not want to back down, and an arrangement – even secret –
that America would not apply the sanctions to European companies would completely nullify
their effect. European companies would simply ignore them and carry on with their plans. So
the possibility they might be invoked has to stay, with all the attendant fury that is likely
to cause. Juicy as a mango, I think. Official America has been a bully for so long that it's
the only problem-solving approach it remembers.
The question that keeps nagging at the corner of my mind, though, is "What if the USA were
successful at stopping the construction of Nord Stream II and Russia ceased transit through
Ukraine anyway?" After all, this whole effort is focused on forcing Russia to continue
transiting a big part of Europe's gas supplies through Ukraine, both to keep Ukraine viable
by forcing Russia to engage with it despite its objectionable ideological government, and to
keep Ukraine as a bargaining chip to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier.
Washington's assumption is that Russia will continue to transit gas through Ukraine if its
alternatives are removed – after all, it's just a big gas station, and it can't live
without its gas sales to Europe. But what if, once again, Washington guessed wrong? If I were
running Russia – let's pretend, because I'm not – I would orchestrate a series of
'rebel' sabotage attacks on Naftogaz's pipeline network, blowing up substantial parts of it,
and then use that as a reason to cease transit of gas through the line: it's just not safe. I
would then maximize transit through existing pipelines
except
Ukraine, perhaps
accelerating the completion of Turkish Stream, and publicly and loudly blame any shortfall on
American meddling – if Nord Stream had been twinned, you wouldn't have this problem. If
it were managed correctly and everything went according to plan, I think it would
resonate.
Also, Russia has reduced its dependence on energy exports. It might be worth it to allow a
scenario in which Washington got the opportunity to make up for Russian shortfalls, because
it would be a complete failure – the export capability is just not there, and if they
redoubled their efforts they would lose money like crazy because they could not do it for
Russia's prices. Either they would flop at the delivery end, or the Europeans would squeal
like pigs because their gas rates went out of sight, or Uncle Sam would take a bath on
American exports. Those are the only possible scenarios, it should be emphasized.
We have clear evidence that the politicians in the USA do not have a grip on Russia's economy
and exports dependence. By 2019 Russia will have a massive gas pipeline to China. Gas for
this pipeline has to come from somewhere and filling it up with Banderastan transit gas would
be a good start to put the USA and its EU colony in its place. According to the most recent
Awara Group report, the fraction of oil and gas industry in Russia is down to 8% of GDP. Not
only is Russia not dependent on oil and gas for its GDP, it will lose nothing by shifting
supply away from the EU.
American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's
piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It
would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will
remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes
from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm
to sell.
"The European powers reacted sharply yesterday to the US House of Representatives' passage
of a bill imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, indicating that it was
unacceptable to European interests and that the European Union (EU) was preparing retaliatory
measures."
"Angry commentary over the sanctions bill in the German press underscore that influential
forces in the German ruling class see the sanctions bill as yet further evidence of hostile
US intent towards Germany and Europe.
"What is particularly dangerous is that supporters of Russia sanctions in Washington are not
only trying to put Putin and Trump in the same bag, but also helping the US economy against
foreign competition," wrote the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Under the bill, the daily added,
"Europeans would be forced to burn less Russian natural gas and more American liquefied
natural gas. This is an unfriendly act, especially against Germany."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that, "with all due respect for the Senate and its
ambition to tie President Donald Trump's hands on Russia policy, the draft law is
unacceptable from a European perspective. First, it breaks the diplomatic alliance between
Europe and the United States in deciding on sanctions against Russia. The argument that
America is promoting Europe's energy security is also quite insolent. That is Europe's
responsibility. This is how you lose friends."
The question that is emerging is whether the US-EU military rivalry and bitter trade
conflicts will now coalesce and escalate into a catastrophic breakdown in US-EU relations!in
the form of a trade war that would bring the world economy to its knees, or of outright
military conflict."
Hmmm .So the RWETA is born.. Russia &Western EuropeTrade Allliance
Why make it more complicated than it is? The French are in the lead for once – such
sanctions are a violation of international law. Consequently no other nations are obligated
to abide by them. If America levied a massive fine against BASF Wintershall, and that company
simply ignored it, what would America do? Start booting out German companies in the USA? Melt
BMW's and pour them down the drains in the street?
As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away,
one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and
fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now
that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin
probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game.
The really funny part in this, from my viewpoint, is the way the Europeans blame Trump and
his presidency. Granted, he did frame the 'America first' policy, but that's just a
convenient handle for the angry Europeans to grab. Trump entered office with the declared
intention of mending the damaged relationship with Russia, and it was the Democrats who
created an hysterical firestorm of accusation that Russia had greased Trump's way into
office. It has been ideologues outside Trump's circle who crafted the sanctions legislation
with a view to preventing him from lifting the sanctions under his own recognizance.
It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of
small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse
only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in
gross violation of WTO rules as well.
Europe hosts US military bases that threaten Russia. Europe has backed Washington's wars of
aggression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Washington's air attacks on
provinces of Pakistan, and Washington's use of Saudi Arabia to fight its proxie war against
Yemen.
Europe has backed Washington's gratuitous economic sanctions against Iran and Russia,
sanctions that have cost Europe much and Washington little.
Accustomed to having its way with Europe, Washington commits Europe without even consulting
the vassal governments. Now it seems Washington's extraordinary arrogance and hubris has
resulted in overreach. Confronted with a new round of sanctions against Russia, Jean-Claude
Juncker, president of the European Commission told Washington that the time has passed when
Washington can put its interests first and Europe's last.
The new sanctions have devastating economic and political consequences for Europe. Juncker
said that if Europe's "concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act
appropriately within a matter of days."
The German and French foreign ministries added their support to Juncker. The German foreign
ministry said: "It is not in the Americans' right to judge or stipulate which way European
companies may engage in cooperation with any third parties – particularly, with Russian
energy companies."
The French foreign ministry said: the sanctions "contradict international law" due to their
"extraterritorial reach."
Europe views the sanctions as a tool of US industrial policy that elevates US business
interests over Europe's business interests.
Let's hope that Washington's arrogance will not permit Washington to back down and that
Europe will give Washington the finger and disengage from the American Empire. Without Europe
to host its military bases and to parrot its propaganda, Washington's ability to threaten
Russia would significantly decline. Indeed, a continuation of the hostile threatening attitude
toward Russia would leave Washington isolated in the world. No country wants the risk of
experiencing nuclear war merely for the sake of Washington's unilateralism.
"They need the Germans/EU to actually start a serious pushback"
Fully agree. And as another commenter here stated the sanctions are as much against Germany
as against Russia.
The question in my mind is the timing and force. Germany has to maintain a cohesive Europe while
managing relations and antagonisms between US and RF. RF is also mindful of this and I doubt Putin
would willingly make things difficult for Merkel.
A measured, long-term approach is what we're seeing and the US sanctions are a.kid throwing
his toys put of the pram ... The US wants an over-reaction to this childness.
Thanks for the replies! Lots to think and write about, so hard to focus.
Seems to me the newest sanctions are also a test to see if the EU Parliament and EC will remain
corrupted and thus bow down and allow the sanctions to ruin EU's economy.
The only way out I can see is for the EU to call-out
all
the Big Lies upon which the
entire sanctions regime is based beginning with the still referred to Big Lie that Russia invaded
Georgia in 2008 instead of the proven truth--Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Then there are the
tremendous number of Big Lies aimed at Iran, which began in 1979, but which were greatly escalated
by BushCo and its Greater Zion project.
Opening an aggressive investigation into Clinton Foundation illegalities within EU would also
help. Logic suggests Europeans must switch sides at some point, overthrowing the Atlanticists
and embrace Eurasianism and its Multipolar Alliance. Unfortunately, I believe the EU's corrupted
beyond all hope and it will submit--
again
. It seems there's only one real Champion of
European Independence and it's Vladimir Putin.
"... All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China. ..."
The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to
lay claims on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with
Russia, Iran and China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule
All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in
the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia
is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China.
All the rest is carnival time and we stand in the midway in awe of the carnival barker
in the big hat who announces the freak show inside.
China has a hundred friends. We have two; Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Officials See US Move as Proof of 'Anti-Russian Hysteria' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Sergey Ryabkov
was among
a series of top Russian officials issuing warnings with regards to the latest round of US sanctions
against Russia, which overwhelmingly passed the House and seem to have strong support in the Senate.
With US-Russian relations already at a post-Cold War low, officials are warning the US sanctions
are putting them into "
uncharted waters ," pushing an already unstable relationship even further with additional sanctions.
Russian officials pinned this on "anti-Russia hysteria" within the US Congress, saying that they
believe President Trump, who was previously talking up a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia, had
effectively been "trapped" into going along with the sanctions.
The House bill that imposes the sanctions also heavily restricts the ability of the president
to unilaterally lift sanctions in the future. Indeed, that was the initial point of the bill, Democrats
wanted to prevent Trump from removing any sanctions. To get it through Congress, they added sanctions
on Iran and North Korea.
The Russia sanctions have not only riled Russia,
but the European Union as well, with fears the US sanctions will heavily hit European energy
companies that are reliant on Russia for supplies. EU officials have warned the US is likely to face
a swift retaliatory move by them if the sanctions go through.
Big victory for neocons. Defeat of Trump administration. Looks like the neocons have numerous ways
to make him cave. Huge set back for Putin as it undermine his policy of cooperating with West. It's
kind of hilarious that the neocon press corp pushing Clinton's BS #Russiagate narrative has put German
Poodles on the same side as Trump
Russia can't retaliate as the USA is way too strong and is spoiling for a fight. Also the USA export
to Russia is not that big. This is actually more a hit on Europeans, especially Germany.
Notable quotes:
"... Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense." ..."
"... "The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target," ..."
"... Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria," Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant chain McDonald's should be targeted in response. ..."
"... Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American firms at a disadvantage. ..."
"... It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including many local executives. ..."
"... "The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it is going to be for a long time." ..."
Apart from demanding a tough response, many in Russia declared dead any hope for improved relations
with Washington under a Trump administration, and there were suggestions that
European pique over the proposed measures created an opening for an anti-American alliance.
Dmitri S. Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin, noted that the proposed American
law was still a draft. The House and the Senate must reconcile their versions before submitting it
for President Trump's signature.
Any substantial response by Mr. Putin would require more study, Mr. Peskov said. Using one of
Mr. Trump's favorite adjectives in describing the law, he said, "In the meantime, it can be said
that the news is quite sad with regard to Russia-U.S. relations and prospects for their development."
He added that it was "no less depressing with regard to the international law and international commercial
relations."
Similar sentiments emerged from several European capitals. In Paris, the Foreign Ministry issued
a statement saying that the new sanctions, targeting Iran and North Korea as well as Russia, appeared
to contradict international law because of their global reach.
There is concern in Europe that the American sanctions could ripple through the energy market
because they target companies that contribute to the development, maintenance or modernization of
the pipelines exporting Russian energy.
That would most likely affect a hotly debated natural-gas pipeline project linking Russia with
Germany, called Nord Stream 2, which is owned by the Russian state oil giant, Gazprom, but in which
European firms hold financial stakes.
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign relations committee in the Federation Council, the
upper house of the Russian legislature, said Moscow must respond even if it waited for the final
law.
The reaction should be "painful for the Americans," he wrote on Facebook. He also suggested a
temporary alliance with Europe.
Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would
bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense."
"The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of
prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target,"
Mr. Ryabkov said, according to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. Despite that, he added, Moscow
remained ready to cooperate on shared concerns, including fighting terrorism.
Last December, former President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and
the closing of two Russian diplomatic estates near Washington and New York. Mr. Putin, anticipating
better relations under a Trump administration, did not respond at the time. Many say they believe
the Russian leader's most likely first step will mirror those actions, and Moscow has been threatening
to take such measures for weeks.
The American bill, passed by a vote of 419 to 3 by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, bolsters
economic sanctions against Russia that were imposed after Moscow annexed Crimea and destabilized
Ukraine in 2014.
The measures reflect Congress's growing unease with Mr. Trump's relatively warm attitude toward
Russia despite repeated assertions from United States intelligence agencies that Moscow hacked the
American election. The law would require Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval before lifting
any sanctions -- a curb on executive authority that has prompted mixed signals from the White House
about whether Mr. Trump will sign any final version of the bill.
Russia, effectively ignoring the fact that its election meddling had prompted the measures, used
the push for tightened sanctions as further proof that deep forces in the American government were
continuing to thwart Mr. Trump's wish, expressed during the campaign, to improve ties with Moscow.
Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria,"
Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote
on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant
chain McDonald's should be targeted in response.
There has been concern in the American business community that the sanctions would harm their
interests. In previous rounds, Washington consulted with Europe on sanctions to ensure that everyone
was on the same page. Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American
firms at a disadvantage.
"If there is no coordination, everyone goes their own way," he said. "We don't like them," he
added, referring to the sanctions.
In response to Western sanctions in 2014, Moscow banned the import of many foods from the West,
including cheese and fish. Those counter-sanctions are often lauded in Russia as helping foster agricultural
development at home.
It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation
from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador
to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including
many local executives.
More than anything else, the proposed law left the impression that the American sanctions, whether
effective or not, would endure.
"There were sort of expectations that the sanctions would be gradually lifted because there would
be progress in the political settlements in Ukraine," said Oleg Khokhlov, a partner with Goltsblat
BLP, the Russian arm of Berwin Leighton Paisner, a London-based law firm.
"The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about
to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it
is going to be for a long time."
"... No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does not. ..."
"... Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda. ..."
"... Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests. ..."
"... President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control of his Administration. ..."
This week's expected House vote to add more sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a prime
example of how little thought goes into US foreign policy. Sanctions have become kind of an automatic
action the US government takes when it simply doesn't know what else to do.
No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington
is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington
tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable
as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the
elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does
not.
Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated
Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want
to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda.
Why, just weeks after the White House affirmed that Iran is abiding by its obligations under the
nuclear treaty, does Congress pass additional sanctions anyway? Washington blames Iran for "destabilizing"
Syria and Iraq by helping them fight ISIS and al-Qaeda. Does this make any sense at all?
When is the last time Iran committed a terrorist act on our soil? It hasn't. Yet we learned from
the declassified 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 report that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved
in the 2001 attacks against Washington and New York.
Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria
for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because
sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests.
Why is Congress poised to add yet more sanctions on North Korea? Do they want the North Korean
people to suffer more than they are already suffering? North Korea's GDP is half that of Vermont
– the US state with the lowest GDP! Does anyone believe they are about to invade us? There is much
talk about North Korea's ballistic missile program, but little talk about 30,000 US troops and weapons
on North Korea's border. For Washington, it's never a threat if we do it to the other guy.
Here's an alternative to doing the same thing over and over: Let's take US troops out of North
Korea after 70 years. The new South Korean president has proposed military talks with North Korea
to try and reduce tensions. We should get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. If
Iran and Russia want to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda at the invitation of their ally, Syria, why stand
in the way? We can't run the world. We are out of money.
President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said
on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control
of his Administration.
Trump vetoing it would create yet another bubble of media and political establishment noise
against him. That might even be useful if he needs a distraction from something else.
Meanwhile, what's happening with Sessions? I can understand Trump being annoyed with him for
recusing himself from the Russia nonsense and allowing a special prosecutor to be set up, when
arguably it would have been better to just openly laugh at the allegations from the beginning.
Would there have been enough Republican traitors to get him impeached for doing so? But losing
Sessions seems likely to seriously piss off another remaining chunk of his core support, unless
he can find someone else who can satisfy the base and get past Congress, which seems unlikely.
"... The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring. ..."
"... The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country, as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European sanctions took hold. ..."
"... Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports. ..."
"... A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship Russian natural gas across the Baltic. ..."
Those 2014 U.S. sanctions were paired with related measures imposed by the European Union,
which placed restrictions on business with Russia's financial, defense and energy sectors.
Today, Russia's economy is still feeling the harsh impact of those measures, which coincided
with a crash in global oil prices that cut deeply into revenues from the country's main
export.
The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017
Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the
ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring.
The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country,
as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to
dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European
sanctions took hold.
Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American
business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports.
Only six U.S states count Russia as a significant market for goods and services. Washington,
the most reliant, sells roughly 1 percent of its total exports to Russia, consisting mostly of
machinery and farm products. That's half the level before the 2014 sanctions took effect.
European nations, which export greater volumes to Russia than the U.S., imposed their own
set of sanctions response to the Crimean annexation.
But some European countries that rely more heavily on Russia as a trade partner are eyeing
the latest U.S. sanctions warily.
A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would
include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would
likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship
Russian natural gas across the Baltic.
"... Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved. ..."
"... And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying. ..."
"... There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may. ..."
"... Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die. ..."
"... For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough. ..."
"... That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something". ..."
Fracking Around with the Russians What will those rascals in Moscow do next?
July 18, 2017
1,400 Words
112 Comments
It has been another week full of news about Russia. Americans might be surprised to learn that
nearly every aspect of their lives has been somehow impacted by the insidious covert activity of
a former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy. One of the latest claims
is that Moscow has been
covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking
technologies. The allegations, which have
recently surfaced in Congress , conceded that the Russians allegedly moved forward with their
strategy to damage America's energy independence without leaving behind "a paper trail," thus there
appears to actually be little or no supporting evidence for what is little more than a series of
claims, which have been denied by the groups in question, including the highly respectable Sierra
Club. Moscow has not commented.
To be sure, there is a certain logic inherent in assertions that Russia might be behind such a
development as Moscow's economy runs on energy exports and high prices are good for it. Consequently,
it ought not surprise anyone that Russia would seek to discredit competitive technologies that work
to increase the supply of energy and thereby cause prices to fall. It's simple math, but is it true
given the fact that environmental groups are widely popular due to the appeal of the product they
are promoting and have their own reliable sources of income?
Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of
targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in
collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power.
And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not,
which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might
be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved.
And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow
is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely
patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no
matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying.
There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless
stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone
that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative
to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed
from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente
mindset come what may.
I was particularly bemused by the
comment by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of
20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word
of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in the recent election. In an interview
Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan
is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over
Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to
create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to
dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided
by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald
Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports
regarding the contacts of Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents
while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something
having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more
about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like
a quid pro quo actually took place, the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically
inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily naivete on my part nor a denial
that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with
adversaries and very often even with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking
to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance its own interests.
Assuming even the
worst case scenario that the media has been promoting, the Trump Tower meeting appears to have
involved three political aspirants who were a bit on the novice side and a Russian lawyer and lobbyist
who might have been intelligence cut-outs. What did happen anyway? Apart from not reporting the encounter
by the three apparent victims of the planned corruption of America's democratic process, nothing
apparently happened except that the event itself has now given the esteemed Senator Charles Schumer
and the Honorable Adam Schiff something new to mouth off about. Oh, and it keeps Rachel Maddow and
Stephen Colbert, who is celebrating Russia Week on his program, employed.
Politics is a dirty business, based on power and money in these United States. Presumably back
in mid-June there was enough salacious information floating around emanating from both parties to
provide employment for plenty of individuals who were prepared to do whatever it would take to dig
up something damaging up from any source available, including foreigners. That game was played by
both sides and anyone who does not think that is so is avoiding the hard edge of the pervasive political
corruption that greases the wheels in the United States.
So maybe Russia is funding some environmental groups or maybe not. And if it is, so what? I would
welcome anyone who challenges fracking. And so what if a cluster of political tyros met with a couple
of Russians who may or may not have been sent by Putin. Clearly, nothing came of it and meeting with
a Russian and talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country.
Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence.
All of which leads one to question why the U.S. media insist on holding the Russian government and
its intelligence services to a higher standard than they do other countries like Israel, which persistently
spy on the U.S. and regularly interfere in our political process? And what about our own government
and its multitude of spy agencies? Are we always the guys in the white hats? Let's look at the actual
record. CIA has done far worse far more consistently in collecting information through misdirection,
influencing overseas elections and even changing regimes than have the Russians. And let's not forget
the U.S. military's record on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and currently Syria. We are very good at that
"regime change" sort of thing even though the results frequently turn out badly because no one in
Washington seems to know what to do on day 2 after the invasion has ended with yet another "victory"
and another foreign government has been consigned to the garbage heap.
← Who Is the Real Enemy?
Category: Economics ,
Foreign Policy Tags:
American Media ,
CIA ,
Environmentalism ,
Fracking ,
John Brennan ,
Russia ,
Scott Ritter
Speaking of regime change, wasn't it Victoria Nuland and George Soros' enabling of Kiev coup
that obliged the US installed puppet gov't. of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election at the
behest to DNC to assist Hillary?
The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference
Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look
like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.
Also in this whole Russia-fracking gate, will no one in the media mention the vanglorious and
incompetent sleuth, John Podesta's Machiavellian (for dummies) support for groups putting pressure
on the Catholic Church ?
" A former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy."
Recent studies indicate that the Russian Economy is now larger than that of Germany. Current Western
sanctions, far from harming the Russian economy, have been beneficial in supporting import substitution
and diversification.
It is clear Giraldi doesn't read the work of his fellow columnist, Anatoly Karlin. Giraldi is
still stuck in 1995. Time you caught up on your homework, Philip.
Mr. giraldi should ask can Italy or Spain afford or make what Russia can ,can France or Germany?
Hence Mr. Giraldi views of what Russian economy is, are not correct.
" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."
There are secret laws, so one can no longer say even that with certainty. These are the same
laws that make it illegal to know or merely meet a Russian.
West needs evil white people. No civilization can function without some agreed on enemy. Russia
has played this role on and off for centuries. Today there is simply no other viable candidate
– with the multi-cultural and religous taboos, and the need for the enemy to be credible and a
bit remote. So Russia it is and probably will be for a long time, any consequences be damned.
Russia dislike also feeds well into the surviving atavistic hatreds among key groups in the
West: grandkids of pogroms, endless emigres with their bitter family memories and a need to fit
in, the deep seated thirst for revenge among Germans now that they are again allowed to sit at
the Western table, the French and Anglo-Saxon egomania and a need to distract from their own history.
And of course the Poles, they would line up to attack Russia if Al Queda would lead it. One cannot
fight emotions.
The question is whether it is wise. It is close to impossible to maintain permanent hostility
with Russia, so something has to give. A climb-down is very unlikely – too many powerful people
are freshly invested in the struggle against 'evil Russkies'. The two other alternatives are worse:
if Russia gets destroyed, West won't last long – the Russia's hinterland will get overrun by southern
and eastern masses and West will be basically done for. And destroying both Russia and West in
a war needs no analysis.
Could we possibly perish because Western elites were emotionally invested in Clintons getting
back in the White House and the jobs-perks that would come with it? Or because some nerd named
Podesta messed up his email passwords? Well, why not, after all Franz Ferdinand's driver made
a bad turn and
@Verymuchalive This analysis comes from the World Economic Forum. Russia's economy is slightly
bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy. It is far smaller than that of Germany and
is dwarfed by the US.
@Philip Giraldi Mr. Giraldi, that's nominal GDP. Meaningless. Might as well cite the number
of bubble gum chewers as an indicator.
On a list of countries by projected 2017 GDP (PPP), Russia places 6th, in a virtual dead heat
with Germany.
On that basis, China is ahead of even the EU, with the US 2nd on a national basis, and a distant
3rd on an economic "block" basis. It is some $4T behind China, which sounds about right.
@Philip Giraldi The best way to compare economies is by using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity).
It is not perfect, but it adjusts for currency fluctuation. By that measure, using CIA Worldbook
for 2016, Russia is #6 economy in the world, slightly smaller than Germany. Spain is #16 and about
half the size of Russia's economy in real terms.
The reason it is absolutely essential to adjust for currecy conversion is that otherwise you
get crazy variations when e.g. dollar goes up by 30% against the euro. Or in Russia's case ruble
is down almost 50% against the dollar. Those are artificial numbers – showing size in 'dollars'
that are nor used in those economies is like showing US economy's performance in pesos. PPP adjusts
for purchasing power.
Russia's economy is about the size of Germany, with almost twice the population. It is also
one of 4-5 economies that can manufacture everything from jet planes and space rockets, to nuclear
power plants and weapons. It has about 1/5 of world's total physical resources and is self-sufficient
in food. It is the largest lightly populated space in the world. There are different ways we can
be wrong about the realities around us, trying to have it both ways and to stay within some allowed
boundaries is one of them.
@The Alarmist As I've said many times before, one day it will be a crime, like it is in much
of Europe already, to even question the numbers of the Holocaust, with SEVERE punishments maybe
even death!
The Western Elites, you know who I mean, hate Putin for reestablishing and/or fostering the
Christian Orthodox church in the country. 'They' just hate that!
"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the
evidence".
Well, there almost certainly isn't any evidence. But that doesn't really matter. Regardless,
the USA DOES NOT GET to "punish" Russia. There is a little legal concept called "sovereignty"
that seems to have slipped the mind of Americans. Nations do not – cannot "punish" one another
these days. Until, perhaps, 1939, one nation could invade another and conquer it – but today that
is illegal under international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter. Slighter acts
of war, such as sanctions, are also strictly forbidden.
Now, as we all know, the US government – like its li'l bitty buddy the Israeli government –
is in the habit of completely ignoring all laws, and doing whatever it likes. But trampling the
law underfoot is not a wise thing to do – one day, you yourself might need it.
Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy
Phil, this is dubious at best. The same as 18 trillion dollars US economy, 70% of which is
FIRE, that is involved mostly in financial transactions. Even CIA's World Fact Book gives it (for
2015) as 3.8 trillion. At 2017 it is stated at 3.9 trillion which is about the size of Germany's.
Using data of some supposedly "independent" (and globalist in nature) Swiss outlet on Russia is
a dubious task. Big Mac Dollar was introduced for a reason.
Here is dynamics of Russia's GDP from International Monetary Fund (also globalist, but at least
consistent).
I omit here the usage of "absolute" dollars in measuring GDP–it really comes down to introducing
not just Big Mac but F-35 dollars. When Spain will be able to produce what Russia produces, then
maybe.
2+ million Bolsheviks have immigrated to Israel from Russia since the Gravy-train collapsed
in 1991, absconding with not a few billion dollars and a deep resentment . Various careerist took
their policies and plans with them as well.
@Erebus Western economic views were "monetarised" to the point of a complete absurd at the
expense of real, that is manufacturing (productive) economy. This is the view which "equates"
manufacturing of jet aircraft or space station with the balance sheet of some insurance company
or some bank, both of which produce only services, much of them of a virtual and dubious nature.
Sadly, "making money" long ago substituted "making things" and then making money based on that.
The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing
almost to the point of no return. In the end, nothing short of a miraculous victory of Donald
Trump is a greatest testimony to a complete bankruptcy of dominant monetarist economic views.
He emphasized high paying manufacturing jobs–he won.
@Beckow As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's "Big Mac Index":
THE Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether
currencies are at their "correct" level. It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity
(PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would
equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in
any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2017 was
$5.30; in China it was only $2.92 at market exchange rates. So the "raw" Big Mac index says
that the yuan was undervalued by 45% at that time.
For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:
Amongst the conclusions: "In fact, (the Russian economy) is the most self-sufficient and diversified economy in the
world." Thank God for sanctions. Before that it was just "a gas station with nukes".
As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's
Economist (the magazine) and real economy in the same sentence is a bad joke. Economist as
"the ultimate arbiter" is altogether–beyond redemption.
For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:
Russian economy in general is undervalued several times–that is why for the last 20+ years
virtually nobody in Western "analytical" organizations can explain what just hit them.
Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would
look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.
The USA gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela, not the ME.
BTW, in a way, the Israelis do own most of the ME oil, thru their Wall Street confederates
in control of the commodity market where the oil is sold. Sold back and forth around 15 times
before it reaches the refinery, meaning the US customer is getting screwed BIG TIME by our Israeli
ally.
@Andrei Martyanov I think you failed to appreciate the "tongue in cheek" quality of my remark.
In your rather blind haste to defend Russia, which I can well understand, you seem to miss the
fact that I am essentially on your side.
As to being "several times" times undervalued, this is not at all inconsistent with the 57%
undervaluation shown by the Big Mac index, which means that the ruble's "true" value is nearly
2.5 times its quoted value.
@The Alarmist Come again! Secret laws? You mean the ones Senator Caligula arranges to have
carved in Esperanto on stone blocks exhibited once a week on the top of a 50 foot scaffold? You
are talking about laws in the everyday dictionary or constitutionsl sense and not just some note
from tbe White House?
The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing
almost to the point of no return.
Well, it had to if it was going to go for Dollar-based Hegemony. It apparently felt that it
had to, and so it did.
Triffin's Dilemma states that if a single nation is the issuer of the world's reserve currency,
then that nation had to run increasingly massive trade deficits to fund the world's liquidity.
What better way to do that than to encourage their industry (via tax incentives) to move their
industry off-shore? The captains of American industry jumped at the gift and made a LOT
of money feeding China's development.
What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They
promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a
massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out
of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players,
but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now
Chinese. All state owned.
When they hand that card back in, it'll be at, or just over its limit, and overseas USM personnel
will be hitch-hiking rides back to the US.
@for-the-record My point was not in "defending Russia"–my reasons are much deeper than any
mere "defense". I may have missed your sarcasm on Economist, but using Ruble (or any currency
in general) as an economic indicator is a tricky business. Structure of GDP and a number of enclosed
technological cycles are among most important, in fact–defining, factors.
It is quite certain that rich American environmentalists have funded speciously connected Aboriginal
litigants to conduct lawfate against the potentially gigantic Galilee Basin ptoject in Queensland
to export coal to India.
What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They
promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure,
a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population
out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign
players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world
are now Chinese. All state owned.
Very true. But using term "massive industrial base" may give an aneurysm to some Wall Street
economic "analysts" or create a cognitive dissonance of such a scale that will require psychiatric
intervention.
@Andrei Martyanov Using rubles at the "official" exchange rate is of course meaningless; however,
using a purchasing-power-parity adjusted exchange rate (which is what the Big Mac index is, in
a certain sense) provides a very useful means for comparing levels of outputs in different countries,
do you not agree?
@Andrei Martyanov This is not the first time Phil compared Russia to Spain or Italy. It is
widespread dillusion and meme I read often. I find it in line general American policy to repeat
lies and insinuations non stop be it WW2 history, Ukraine, Russian GDP,elections and so forth
until it is accepted as sort of truth. Even Phil being non mainstream still repeats this nonsense
comparing Russia to Spain.
Both as a veteran and as a former cold warrior, I must say that I feel betrayed by the myopia,
historical ignorance, incompetence, hubris, recklessness, sheer nuttiness of the Washington establishment's
conduct towards Russia over the past 20 years – bipartisan insanity. When one thinks it can't
get worse, it gets worse; or as the circa 70s Soviet saying went, things are worse today than
yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
Economic numbers are relevant but ultimately beside the point when calculating one's national
interest in the context of the world's major political and nuclear powers and history's most blood
soaked century.
Kudos to people like Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and Patrick Buchanan who demonstrate regularly
that at least some who were there as witnesses of what was retain the good judgment to recognize
the road the damn DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good
reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do.
@Andrei Martyanov This was part of the argument I was trying to expose. The Russian economy
is grossly undervalued and many people who should know better like Philip Giraldi tend to grossly
underestimate its size, range and capabilities.
By contrast, the American economy is grossly overvalued and its capabilities grossly overestimated.
You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing. Purely
as an advertising vehicle, which is all it is, Facebook might be worth a couple of hundred million
dollars. But no more.
And the there's Twitter. Never made a profit in its 11 years. $2 billion accumulative deficits.
Book worth $11 billion. You couldn't make it up.
@RobinG For a guy that claims to 'only be interested in the facts' this 'great' investigative
reporter sure likes to serve up a crock of BS for his main course. While trying to make a case
that the DNC was solely responsible for installing Yanukovych's replacement, the video clip shows
Nuland making a phone call to somebody (?) announcing that her choice was Vitali Klitschko oops,
how did Victor Poroshenko end up running the show, and not Klitschko? Looks like this sinister
Soros plot unraveled here a wee bit. Also, while trying to besmearch the good name of John McCain,
he's shown on a stage with a supposed notorious 'anti-Semite'. But look, who's that third person
on the stage with both McCain and Tyahnibok? Why it's Arseni Yatseniuk, a Ukrainian-Jew, of all
people! What's this Ukrainian Jew doing on stage with this great anti-Semite? Maybe he's an anti-Semite
too??
@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and others we are really on the same side on this – no matter how
one values the Russian economy it is still tiny compared to the US and Western Europe. My point
is that it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat to everyone else – it doesn't have the economic
mojo to take on the world. So let's stop picking on
Russia and calling it a threat. Likewise my comment about punishing Russia – if indeed Russia
has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order. But we should
be demanding evidence relating to all the allegations and even then when I am referring to punishment
I am thinking in terms of sanctions and other actions, not any expansion of NATO or anything that
actually threatens Russian security.
@Sergey Krieger Those are mantras. In one sense I understand that, even among people who,
otherwise, would be considered "realists". It is akin to John Mearsheimer repeating non-stop his
favorite mantra of Russian Armed Forces being "a mediocre army". It will take some time for a
reality to sink in.
if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in
order.
Agree, as strange it may sound from the man of my background. The United Sates is a sovereign
nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I
doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections. I make this conclusion purely on assessing
the overall (much improved since mid-2000s) intellectual level of people who run Russian institutions
which potentially may have interfered. I don't think those people are that stupid as to endanger
US-Russian relations which are crucial for global stability, or whatever is left of it anyway.
Back to "no evidence" again! "Let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong".
OK. How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
Putin doesn't deny it! By the way, from what I gather, talking with representatives of a foreign
power with a view to obtaining an advantage is a federal crime and it matters not one whit whether
any advantage was actually obtained or even that the "representatives" were faking. In the particular
case, DNC "dirt" actually did pop up on the internet. Moreover, one of the lawyer's clients was
being prosecuted for money laundering. Trump removed the federal prosecutor and the company was
suddenly offered a sweet settlement deal without a guilty plea. That's a long way from "ipso facto"!
You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing.
Atrocious, isn't it? Boeing–a crown jewel of American (and global aerospace) industry and engineering
genius and a FB. One produces technological marvels with global demand, another produces absolutely
nothing, sadly, also with a global demand.
BTW, as I type this–Russia held today opening of 2017 MAKS aerospace exhibition–a real economy
on display. There is only other nation in the world which can on her own produce anything comparable–and
that is the US.
Moral Equivalence? Heck no. America is the indispensable and exceptional nation.
We can commit the same sins in even greater number and magnitude than other nations yet no
one can hold us accountable while we hold others accountable for identical actions.
I recently wrote a very intelligent and cogent comment on a right-wing website which suggested
that viewing America as if we were indispensable and exceptional, despite the plain fact that
Trump was elected precisely because we aren't either of those things and his job was to find flaws
and fix them, would tend to placate Americans such that we don't get to work fixing those flaws.
Guess what, that post was deleted by moderators within seconds.
Swell-headedness and self importance seems very deeply ingrained in Americans.
Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics.
Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow
to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk
Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die.
For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well
being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global
Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough.
That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their
fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough
to allow them to "think of something".
They have to stop the Silk Road from coming somehow, or American power will recede to the continent,
leaving them to boss Canada and Mexico around. With Russia out of the way, China's a pushover.
The two together can't be overcome. It really is as simple as that.
and compare that to a Russian lawyer meeting with Trump surrogates with potential dirt on Clinton,
the sheer hypocrisy is enough to benumb the mind and soul, it's so beyond egregious.
what's going on is the unipolar world of Zio-NATO demanding fealty from every last bastion
of the dying multilateral international community, until it's zio-interests reign the entire length
and breath of the planet, without a shred of resistance or dissent.
Sort of like the way they demanded that no one give Edward Snowden safe haven. And almost all
nations kowtowed. They will not rest until their unipolar domination extends to every last bastion
of human freedom from their $atanic power.
The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything
at her disposal
that's laughable.
the institutions of the US were murdered on 9/11, along with all those people in the planes
and towers. We are no longer a people or a nation with a legal constitution, but rather are an
occupied people with a quisling government serving Israel's interests, day and night. We're about
as sovereign as Palestine, but at least they have the dignity of seeing their occupation for what
it is, whereas we play pretend, and act like we're still sovereign, even as our citizens are assassinated
if they become inconvenient to the regime in Tel Aviv that runs things here.
if we're going to be occupied by a hostile regime that hates us and wants to use us as cannon
fodder to enslave Russia and everyone else, then we ought at least be allowed the dignity of knowing
it and saying it.
How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
you must be from the Kagan family of war pigs
Victoria Nuland (Nudelman), and her corpulent husband Robert Kagan
the waddling blob of lard Frederick Kagan and his war sow wife Kimberly Kagan
(This may be one of the primary reasons for the ongoing demonization of Russia: One of zionism's
foremost goals was the in-gathering of the diaspora. In the past zionists have destabilised states
where Jews dwelt -- peacefully and securely -- in order to frighten Jews into leaving. If the Jews
who left Russia in the 1980s are now returning, or are not integrating successfully in Israel,
then similar tactics will likely be deployed.)
Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel According to Rozovsky, the post- 2000 immigrants, especially
those who arrived following the failed
May 10, 2017 Some 17 per cent of the Jewish immigrants who came to Israel from the former Soviet
Union in the early 1990s have since left, official data by
Sep 1, 2016 "The majority of native-born Israelis think Russian Israelis are not Jews," said
Svetlova. . were forced to give up their citizenship and pension upon leaving.
@Rurik I may agree with you on some points but those agreements are not bases for denouncing
national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including
USA.
@Greg Bacon Yeah, I know we don't get our oil in the ME, but we justify our meddling there
and everywhere by trying to keep it out of the hands of our 'enemies' and flowing to our friends.
even if we have to create those friends and enemies in order to create a role for ourselves.
Regarding the second point you made, I didn't know that, but somehow I'm not exactly surprised!
@Philip Giraldi How do you "wreck an election"? I can imagine a number of ways from using
violence, intimidation, media pressure, buying votes, blackmail of candidates, electoral fraud,
and a few others. But none of those happened in a significant way in the 2016 elections – and
the esteemed Mr. Obama went out of his way right before the elections to say that all was in order.
Now, one can argue that some of the above always happens, and that it also happened in 2016
in US (there was some violence and media manipulation, there is always some fraud ). But how can
any sane person claim that it "wrecked the election"?
If one looks at any event long enough and is motivated to find 'irregularities', one can always
find them. But how was 2016 different from 2012,or 2000, or 1968, or any other election year?
national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including
USA.
OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of
nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?
IOW, wouldn't it be rather silly for Israel to punish a Palestinian for failing to recognize
Israel's sovereignty, when Israel doesn't even respect his right to breath, let alone have a spot
on the earth that he can call his own?
Isn't it sort of a folly for the ZUSA to demand that Russia respect our sovereignty, when we
relentlessly subvert her election processes and the stability of the nations on her borders, in
a direct and obvious attempt to destabilize their government and society? And try to do them all
manor of harm to benefit some dark and devious scheme of the (by now notorious) villains that
run our government and institutions?
It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.
or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.
But then I'll gladly pretend that Trump is going to return to us our sovereignty, and behave
within the norms of International Law, (respecting all other nation's sovereignty) and then when
that happens, then I'll agree with you vis-a-vis the importance of protecting the institutions
of our national sovereignty. Something I hope Trump will be able to wrest back from Tel Aviv,
and we can all live happily ever after.
The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything
at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections.
The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without
fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and
their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters". With that in mind, why on earth would Russia
seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is
necessary.
How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
I see you are a well-paid 2nd-tier hasbara. A slicker, smoother, more practiced line of patter.
But, bullshit, per the usual.
Russia has long-standing agreements with Ukraine that establish rights-of-way to its bases
in Crimea. Nothing illegal was done with respect to international law. It's very typical of Israelis
to squawk nastily about "international law" that does not exist.
Good to have you aboard, Moshe! We need a good token around to shill for Israel. Keep that
bullshit coming!!
The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without
fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves
and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters".
True to a large degree. Yet:
With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America
is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.
You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real
Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they
will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all. US is a nuclear superpower and is still
a crucial player in global economy. Russia sure as hell is interested in saner and, in a good
geopolitical sense, national interests' defending US–but those interests certainly can not be
"global" in neocon "interpretation". In the end, during campaigning Trump was saying very many
right words and those words have been prepared for him by very powerful people, which testifies
to the fact of some powerful forces inside US who do understand the new game. We all are currently
at the point of no return, we are still balancing on it, whether we will cross into the "pass
the point of NR" is yet to be seen. But US power is declining both in relative and absolute terms
and this process is objective.
@Philip Giraldi Why am I beginning to get the feeling that Russia is now being catapulted
by the most complex algorithms to the forefront of the world economic ranking in order to make
them look like the ominous opponent we've already 'agreed' to make them into?
@Erebus If your analysis is correct, and it may well be, then our decline as a superpower
will be the result of Jewish hegemony and the traitorous behavior of the cuckservatives.
Philip Giraldi, pretending to be so fair and reasonable, writes, ""Sure, let's punish Russia
if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."
Punish exactly how? By making the Russians wear dunce caps? By expelling even more Russian
diplomats? Or perhaps by launching a few good ones?
The stupidity, hypocrisy, and hubris of Neocons and their bedmates, the progressives, makes
me gasp. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the sanest and safest way in troubled times is
for all parties to observe international law and not to renounce it.
Now what great human ideal, what dazzling symptom of moral and political greatness has been
achieved by bombing silly but miserably weak countries? Is Iraq a better place for anyone now?Is
Libya more democratic now? Should N. Korea be similarly treated? And of course the mother of all
questions: how should Russia be punished? Will more Nato exercises in the Baltic teach the Russians
better manners? What if they took it into their heads to conduct military exercises off the Gulf
of Mexico? Of course, that will only prove how fiendish they are, how they "interfered" with US
democracy. Interfered how? Perhaps they lifted American skirts a little too high. The US never,
ever interferes with any country's political processes. The CIA exists to ensure that every US
agency follows international law fully. But damn these Russians, they don't understand such noble
things.
Dangerous times when hypocrisy and arrogance gets mixed up with tons of stupidity and ignorance.
One minor quibble. The "golden shower" allegation was designed to be more embarrassing than
your version of it, since the story was that the prostitutes urinated on Trump and not the other
way round.
OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty
of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?
Yes, absolutely so.
It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.
or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.
A good point you make but once you observe with the naked eye most of what is going on currently
in terms of global power re-balancing–it is precisely about a bottom line of several guiding principles
applied to everyone which should be followed–respect for sovereignty is the most important of
them. It will require (and it is happening as I type is) a significant re-defining of US "exceptionalism"
before new balance is achieved but it is this new balance into whose sails the winds of history
are blowing. Having said all that, espionage and operations of influence will certainly not go
anywhere, but the level of violence will be reduced greatly.
@Cortes I knew right away that that whole golden shower story was fake because on the margins
this charge had been made about Hitler also over the years.
Seems to be the standard smear against nazis, #7 in the ol' lexicon.
former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy.
But keep in mind that it's wrong to assess Russian economy this way.
Much of Spanish or Italian economy is just tourism, wine, foods, and such stuff. Italy and
Spain don't have Power Economies.
In contrast, Russia has tons of resources, big machinery, military ware, and energy.
So, it is a Power Economy. And if Russia were to enter into war-footing, these sectors could be
expanded vastly, like during WWII.
1. Russia has been involved in financing 'green' anti EU and Ukrainian fracking for years.
This is, in fact, interesting. Liquid crude oil is fungible but natural gas is very expensive
to move around except in direct, physically connected pipelines. Ukraine could develop an unconventional
gas and oil industry -- in theory. It has resources but not the political or economic cohesion
to do anything for its economy.
2. Same with Europe. except there isn't much to develop. Romania gave it a try and could have
done something at $100 oil but its project has been abandon at current prices.
3. US sanctions on Russia resulted in 'import substitution' economic development. The Ruble
haircut (roughly half) has turned Russia into an agriculture export powerhouse. It's now the largest
exporter of grain in the world.
4. What did we do? We 'manipulated' Russia's currency downward and luck reduced (temporarily)
the value of oil exports. We pushed other countries *not* to trade with Russia. This resulted
in Russia boycotting food imports, among other things. Effectively a tariff. The only negative
was a real, significant, but transitory cost to Russian standard of living. I suppose the rationale
was to punish Putin and cause political unrest. That worked well, no?
5. Meanwhile -- Fracking. Lets call it unconventional US Oil and Gas. The US is effectively
self sufficient regarding net total trade balance of oil and gas, including refined products and
basic chemicals. Not quite as obvious as it would be if every component was in exact balance.
US refineries can get more out of heavy crude and well continue to import it and refine it. The
US produces multi millions of bbl per day of 'liquids' -- a large quantity of which are exported.
Propane, among others. Look it up if you are curious. Meanwhile, the US is the world's largest
producer of natural gas.
The entire unconventional oil industry is the only large area of expansion in the US economy
since 2008. It's why the US has done better than the rest of the developed world's economies since
2008. What replaced the housing bubble? I suppose nothing, but unconventional oil has come close.
A problem is that the benefits are more concentrated than single family housing -- which had the
advantage of being spread around fairly uniformly, with a lot going to the deplorable engaged
in a segment of the skilled labor needed to pull it off.
A policy of global hegemony focused on oil is more than backwards looking. I suppose it is
impossible not to fight the last war. WW 2 wasn't primarily about oil, but the popular narrative
tends to seriously underestimate the extent to which it was catastrophic for Germany. Russia had
it and Germany didn't. And of course -- it was fought on the Eastern Front and paid for in Russian
blood. But oil was so 20th century. Would the US design a foreign policy around the 'strategic'
asset of coal?
The point is that a commodity based view of global hegemony is old and wrong. US has been an
'agricultural' superpower for a century. And now we have made Russia the grain basket of the world.
And now oil is effectively just another commodity. Time to get with it.
@Mr. Hack Yats is not a Jew and even Ukraine's chief rabbi has said so.
Have you even looked at him? There may be blonde and blue-eyed Jews etc, but this guy has zero
Jewish features.
You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once
real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they
will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all.
In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets,
currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc. More correctly, they need something like
the USA, so the USA serves the purpose for the meanwhile. The US is collapsing from decay, where
China is on a growth spurt of yet undetermined duration, Russia on a rebirth cycle following collapse
that did not destroy it.
All interesting factors. I will say I do not believe the US can engender rebirth, and its collapse
will be properly calamitous. We shall see.
RUSSIA INC. Summarising three recent authorities, Wikipedia says Canada's GDP is greater than
Russia's and Germany's is about two and a half times greater. There's something deeply misleading
and, in fact, quite worthless about these GDP comparisons. Russia has a full-service space industry
including the only other operating global satellite navigation system.
Neither Canada nor Germany
does. It has an across the board sophisticated military industry which may be the world leader
in electronic warfare, air defence systems, silent submarines and armoured vehicles. Neither Canada
nor Germany does. It has a developed nuclear power industry with a wide range of products. Ditto.
It builds and maintains a fleet of SSBNs – some of the most complicated machinery that exists.
Ditto. Its aviation industry makes everything from competitive fighter planes through innovative
helicopters to passenger aircraft. Ditto.
It has a full automotive industry ranging from some
of the world's most powerful heavy trucks to ordinary passenger cars. It has all the engineering
and technical capacity necessary to build complex bridges, dams, roads, railways, subway stations,
power stations, hospitals and everything else.
It is a major and growing food producer and is
probably self-sufficient in food today. Its food export capacity is growing and it has for several
years been the leading wheat exporter. It has enormous energy reserves and is a leading exporter
of oil and gas. Its pharmaceutical industry is growing rapidly. It is intellectually highly competitive
in STEM disciplines – a world leader in some cases.
Its computer programmers are widely respected.
(Yes, there is a Russian cell phone.) It's true that many projects involve Western partners –
the Sukhoy Superjet for example – but it's nonetheless the case that the manufacturing and know-how
is now in Russia. Germany or Canada has some of these capabilities but few – very few – countries
have all of them. In fact, counting the EU as one, Russia is one of only four.
Therefore in Russia's
case, GDP rankings are not only meaningless, but laughably so. While Russians individually are
not as wealthy as Canadians or Germans, the foundations of wealth are being laid and deepened
every day in Russia. What of the future? Well there's a simple answer to that question – compare
Russia in 2000 with Russia in 2017: all curves are up. Of course Russians support their government
– why wouldn't they? It's doing what they hired it to do; we others can only dream of such governments.
For what it's worth, PwC predicts Russia will be first in Europe in 2050, but, even so, I think
it misses the real point: Indonesia and Brazil ahead of Russia? No way: it's not GDP/PPP that
matters, it's full service. Russia is a full-service power and it won't become any less so in
the next 30 years. Autarky. Very few aren't there? And in that little group of four autarkies
on the planet, who's going up and who's going down? A big – fatal even – mistake to count Russia
out.
As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something
having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit
more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Speaking of the Magnitsky Act, here is some late-breaking news that, if substantiated, will
put a completely different spin on the bogus Russia-gate scandal:
The scandal concerning the meeting between US President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump
Jr, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was orchestrated by Magnitsky act lobbyist William
Browder, the lawyer told RT in an exclusive interview.
"I´m ready to clarify the situation behind this mass hysteria – but only through lawyers
or testifying in the Senate," Veselnitskaya told RT.
"I can only assume that the current situation that has been heated up for ten days or so
by now is a a very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator – Mr. Browder.
He is one of the greatest experts in the field of manipulating mass media,"Veselnitskaya said.
She went on to say that Browder, who is the founder and CEO of the Hermitage Capital investment
company, orchestrated this whole disinformation campaign as revenge for the defeat he suffered
in a US court in 2013 from a team of lawyers that included Veselnitskaya.
"I have absolutely no doubt that this whole information [campaign] is being spun, encouraged
and organized by that very man as revenge for the defeat he suffered in court of the Southern
State of New York in the 'Perezvon' company case," she said.
"He wasn't able to convince the court with his lousy human tragedy that actually never happened,
about the fate of a dead man – who he only learnt about after his death."
In 2013, Veselnitskaya was one of the lawyers who represented a Cyprus-based holding company
Prevezon, owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, in its defense against allegations of
money laundering in a court of the Southern State of New York.
The case was settled with no admission of guilt by Prevezon.
Veselnitskaya also said she is now concerned for the safety of her family as it's been revealed
that Browder's team spied on her family's activities even before her meeting with Trump Jr.
"It's been revealed that Mr. Browder and his team have been gathering information about
my family," she told RT, adding, that Browder's team "found photos of my house and sent them
to Kyle Parker a famous man in the House of Representatives, who worked for Mr Browder for
many years – and not for any congressmen or congress as a whole."
People working for Browder also shared all her personal details with representatives of
the State Department, Veselnitskaya said.
Browder has a long history of hostility against Russia. In 2013, he was sentenced in absentia
to nine years in prison for tax evasion. He was also the boss of the late Russian auditor Sergey
Magnitsky.
According to the 2013 court verdict, Browder together with Magnitsky failed to pay over
552 million rubles in taxes (about US$16 million). The businessman was also found guilty of
illegally buying shares in the country's natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, costing Russia at least
3 billion rubles (US$100 million).
Magnitsky died in pre-trial custody in 2009. His death led to a strain in Russian-American
relations. US authorities eventually imposed sanctions against Russian officials they deemed
responsible for the auditor's death by issuing the so-called Magnitsky list in 2012. Browder
also lobbied European states to follow Washington's lead.
The Magnitsky Act is a 2012 law that allows the United States to seize assets from a number
of alleged Russian human rights abusers, as well as barring them from entering the country.
Russia retaliated by prohibiting American families from adopting Russian children.
For those who may not recall, Phil previously wrote an excellent article on the sordid Magnitsky
Act affair here on Unz. IIRC, Browder managed to get Sen. McCain to stand on the floor of the
senate and make a sales pitch (with fancy presentation materials) to convince the rest of the
senate to vote in favour of passing the Magnitsky Act, which they did. Hopefully, this story will
now begin to unravel like a ball of yarn.
"Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused
of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking"
We've been Fracking since the early 20th century, there are always risks but overall it is
a safe alternative. Time to stop getting our oil from countries who use their wealth to spread
terror/sharia, whose only aim is to build a global calipahte.
@lavoisier Well, it's not really an "analysis" as such. If one goes back to the literature
of the time, one sees that Triffen's Dilemma was known to the policy makers, and was hovering
overhead in the deliberations leading up to Nixon's "closing the gold window" in 1971.
Dollar Hegemony was very attractive because it offered the West the opportunity to do an end
run around its military stalemate in its Great Game with the USSR. Though closing the gold window
was a policy decision, the attraction was not lost on the captain's of American industry. They
could count on a generation or so of extraordinary profit and scrambled on board.
It was Dollar Hegemony that underpinned the West's takedown of the USSR. By loaning the USSR
"hard currency" (remember that term?), and then collapsing the prices of the stuff the USSR exported
to pay back the loans, the USSR was forced into austerity, and ultimately default.
That plan is a matter of historical record, so didn't require any "analysis" on my part either.
They tried the same thing again in 2014, but I suspect the Russians were ready for them this time.
As for the Jewish part, the elite in most countries are "international" in their lifestyle
and outlook. Yes, Jews are over-represented there, and are possibly more "international" in outlook
than goy elites, but real "Jewish hegemony" comes later with the rise of the Financial State.
Having laid out the ground work in the '90s with the repeal of Glass-Steagal etc, it really takes
off at the time of 9/11, which coincided with the 2nd shoe dropping on the American economy. Namely,
China's ascendance to the WTO and gaining Most Favoured Nation status.
To make Dollar Hegemony work, you need a powerful, and effective military. They got the "powerful"
part, in the sense that the USM is really good at blowing stuff up, but they muffed the "effective",
and so here we are.
@chris Chris, if memory serves, Norman Davies (in his selection of key moments and people
"Europe" – a door stopper of a book) went much further in describing the sexual pathology of Hitler.
I may be mistaken (won't be the first or only time) so don't sue me. Check out the relevant section
of the book.
Here, dealing with President Trump, the effort appears to me to be defamatory and consistent with
the seeming ongoing campaign to destabilise his presidency by actors known and unknown.
@Flavius "DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason
at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do."
I can't agree with that. I would say that total global control is the ultimate motivation.
America's role is to be the persuader and enforcer until such time as relative parity is achieved
and then America can be reduced to little more than a struggling entity that can be slotted in
amongst the other competing economic zones (all controlled by the same interests) in a competitive
race to the bottom scenario.
@Patrick Armstrong A very potent and astute piece of analysis – kudos to you, sir.
Now why don't the great economists in their ivory towers get these common sense things right?
An economy making everything from A to Z is way different from an economy based on wines, cheese,
and chocolates. A wild thought: Perhaps common sense should be made a compulsory part of many
curriculums. Yes, no?
Here's the weekly update on #UNRIG which, due to being attacked last week by Zionist entities
in US, has added a second demand – AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL.
@Mr. Hack Where to begin? How about the notion that John McCain has a good name to besmirch.
("Besmearch" sounds a bit like something a James Bond villain would do, no?)
Next, why the pretense? Everyone knows that Fuktoria was speaking with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,
Geoffrey Ross Pyatt. From Wikipedia,
"In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should be in the government
after Viktor Yanukovych's ouster and in what ways they might achieve that transition, with
the name of Arseniy Yatsenyuk (whom Nuland refers to as "Yats") coming up several times. Specifically,
the two spoke about which opposition leaders they would like to see in government, what pitches
they would give each opposition leader in subsequent calls to achieve this, and strategies
on how they would try to manage the 'personality problems' and conflicts between the different
opposition leaders with ambitions to become president.[15][16] Yatsenyuk became prime minister
of Ukraine on February 27, 2014″
So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister. Porky, the chocolate king, subsequently
became president. Maybe your hearing is bad: they ruled out Klitch from the top positions.
Ya, that's the irony, that the Nudelwoman took power by unleashing a bunch of Banderites and
neo-nazis. Pretty funny, huh? BTW, are you sure Mr. Hack isn't really Mr. Hasbara?
So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister.
Yes, and millions of US citizens who voted in the last elections had their choice for president
validated too. Were they all involved in some nefarious, covert act too? I replayed the video
clip, and while the 'great reporter' talks about Nuland's favorite for the top Ukrainian post,
photos of Klitschko were being transferred over the viewing screen. Still, it was Poroshenko and
not Yatseniuk that filled the top post. In fact, Poroshenko's name was never mentioned in the
nefarious phone call?? BTW, Poroshenko was elected president by way of a monitored and free election
several months after the events on the Maidan had settled down.
For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis',
just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary
Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?
@Mr. Hack {For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites'
and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated
view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and
'neo-Nazis?}
Don't know about Porkyshenko, but The Yats is a neo-Nazi*: scroll down and take a gander
of The Yats giving the traditional greeting to his Nazi Master, Adolf. (right after Oleh Tyahnybok).
"One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups,
most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies."
And Russian environmental critics of Putin, such as Evgueniya Chirikova and Nadezdha Kutepova,
are notoriously sponsored by organizations linked to the US government. The moral outrage of the
American establishment is totally hypocritical. Anything is right or wrong just when it serves
the interests of the American establishment.
In fact, much of the Russian opposition is financed by Washington, but this has never generated
any tearing of the Yankee mainstream media.
As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength,
while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential
(and of real living standards in its per capita format).
In the former domain, Russia is indeed a minor; in the latter domain, it is indeed comparable
to Germany.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk [center], former PM of Ukraine, also NOT performing a Nazi slaute.
I take this quote directly from underneath the photo in the article that you cite. Not an expert
on correct 'Nazi salutes' I'll defer to the author of this photo for his knowledge on this matter.
Yatseniuk, may have showed some solidarity with rightists like Tyahnybok during the Maidan period,
but he's never been known for any far right viewpoints or belonging to any far right political
parties, and indeed has been referred to as a Jew on many occasions. I don't know for a fact whether
or not he's Jewish, not having taken a part in either his Christian baptism, nor his Jewish Bar
Mitzvah.
As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted
GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living
standards in its per capita format).
Somewhat true. But while PPP is, indeed, "better" it is still highly inaccurate, and I mean
highly. Reason being the "adjustment" itself, which changes dramatically across the whole spectrum
of real (that is productive) economy plus calculation of costs in general–e.g. US healthcare system.
While highly developed and world-class (most of the time), its "cost calculations" (through "charge
masters") is ridiculous but it is this number (horrendously inflated) which goes in as part of
US GDP. But here is an example which anyone will understand, since unlike financial transactions,
it is an essential and extremely important service, that is healthcare. My mother just recently,
in Moscow nonetheless, literally built all her teeth anew–she has now literally a new mouth. She
paid 130 000 Rubles. World class dentist, excellent equipment, great service, implants etc–whole
9 yards. Now, if converted directly to US Dollar it comes up to 2167 USD. What can I do for that
here, in US? I know for sure, my good acquaintance dentist offered me a single implant (and I
really need it badly) of an upper tooth for a good price of 2 500 USD. Should I do to my teeth
(desirable for me) what my mother did–I would end up with 20 000 + bill in the best case scenario.
How do we convert that? I looked once at the cost (covered by my insurance, thankfully) of one
of my CT scans–2 000 + USD. This is without "reading" it. As you may have guessed it already,
the same procedure in Russia will cost much-much less, this is without counting free ones, but
you have to wait there for weeks or even months. Here are simple examples of those gigantic discrepancies.
Once one gets into real hi-tech manufacturing field, most (not all) Western "economists" will
have their brains exploding.
@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and Anatoly – Thanks for explaining this. I last studied economics
in an introductory course taught by Milton Friedman. I came away with a "C" and forgot everything
I had learned almost immediately.
@Michael Kenny Lets punish Russia? Are you sure that you have big enough punisher?
How you people get to think and say such a things? Are you not aware that Russia can obliterate
USA and western Europe in 30 mins? No anti-rocket system will help, russian missiles can change
their trajectory in flight (american don´t ) -- Not adding that to defend against thousands of missiles
is virtually impossible. You still writing like you have power over Russia,this is the most stupid
thing you can do – but of course , you are an exceptional representative of the exceptional people
You have a donkey for the president, and you blame it on Russia? Whole world is having fun watching
this opera..
As to international law, USA and NATO countries are in the gravest breach of the international
law, they have executed illegal war and occupation in Serbia, since 1999.(That is just first of
many) Let us first punish that, together with reparations to the attacked nation, and then you
can start speaking about "International law".
I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately
Very similar, albeit I scored A ("5″) IIRC on my Political Economy Of Capitalism (did less
well on the same but of Socialism) in naval academy. But life forced me, eventually, especially
against the collapse of the USSR and our lives being thrown in complete disarray (politely speaking),
to start review and, eventually, study the subject anew.
In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons --
markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc.
Secret to China's economic miracle are precisely these very American markets, which were opened
to Chinese-made goods. Russia is far-far less, on several orders of magnitude, less dependent
on US markets than China, hence Russia has much bigger room for maneuver. But in the rest, you
are correct–US is too important to global economic balance, even despite being so damaging to
it, to think that possible collapse could be contained. It could not be contained completely.
Some sort of accommodation has to be found. What sort? I am not competent enough to be very specific,
plus we will have to go into military-political aspect of that issue.
@Patrick Armstrong Just to add one personal observation. I know Russia very well, lived there
for 12 years, last time in 1991. Then I visited Russia several times until 2006 – improvement
was visible, but nothing prepared me to the Russsia 2017! Even people on the street changed –
to the positive. As to buildings, stores, it is incredible, I couldn´t recognize old Russia, everything
was new, shining, smart and much better than before.
Russians are optimistic , which was
impossible in nineties! It was really a shock for me, very nice shock I don´t know how to express
to you this enormous surprise I never thought such transformation possible .
So speaking about Russia like about some sick giant is a very stupid thing to do. Today, Russia
from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence. I think Western
leaders still think about Russia in categories of 90´s, and that is a big mistake. They should
understand once for all, that Russia has to be treated as equal, and not messed with, like in
Ukraine. If they will not, I think that the Russia will pass from partner, to the Master.
Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence
Without any jokes, however lighthearted this my statement may appear to you, one of the fields
in which Russia's greatness is unsurpassed by the US is the field of 100% cotton socks. No, I
don't mean those white (and warm) cotton socks any COSTCO or department stores sell. No, I am
talking about 100% cotton socks of thin and different colors (including of dressy kind) you can
by in any Russian department store or Auchan. This is not the case with US anymore.
For years
now I was either bringing back with me or whenever any of our friends flew to Russia and back–the
request is always the same: bring 10-12 pairs of not-white thin 100% cotton socks. I gave up trying
to find these socks in US long time ago now, probably circa 2008-09. Including by means of internet.
This is really ridiculous in the nation which was known around the world for its superb cotton
products from jeans to socks for decades. I am almost forced now to go back to Russia next year
to buy socks–jokes aside, a very serious consideration among few others.
@Andrei Martyanov Coming from a natural resource science background I would argue that GDP
is not relevant to a sustainable society. The concept of GDP is based on the mythology of ever
increasing growth. This has been debunked by the late Dr. Bartlett many years ago:
What is relevant is a sustainable society that maintains soil quality/fertility, water quality,
and does not exceed the human carrying capacity of the land. More recently, the concept of doughnut
economics encapsulates this:
Doughnut Economics – Grab a pencil, draw a doughnut!
Perhaps Russia can delay civilizational collapse by not following the the Western economic
growth trap with the fracking, GMOs, water pollution, etc that is destroying what was once the
resource rich land of America.
ps. Another quibble with GDP or PPP measurements is that it does not adequately measure WEALTH
generated from the internal economy. See the automatic earth website for a different economic
model.
Even a 100% accurate system can be made useless if someone sets the warhead to detonate upon
hitting the ground. Hitting a rocket (which is the goal) would only result in a nearby mushroom
cloud. That's quite a predicament for the operators and for the host country.
@Mr. Hack Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in
Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have
nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the direct
responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine, read about
Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in contact with
the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the Director
of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully elected and acting
president?
I disagree with a lot of my American friends because they cannot conceive the notion that projects
designed to benefit all of society are not necessarily evil socialism.
I believe in affordable healthcare for all and think Trump could achieve this by infusing the
VA Hospital system with some extra funds and by using the Cuban healthcare methodology and then
offering the service to those in need and charging according to what people can afford to pay.
Medical students would be selected purely on merit and would work in the hospital as orderlies,
cooks, cleaners whatever while undergoing studies. Post-graduation they would work within the
system at a low income for about 10 years to repay their education. Medicines would be produced
within the system and any profits from R & D would be ploughed back into the system. Preventative
care would also be a feature.
Private healthcare would remain untouched for those who want it and can afford it. I have it
myself.
It could be done, would cost far less than thought and ALL would benefit except perhaps the
greedy and immoral. America would be a better nation for it.
@annamaria I'm curious why those of your persuasion aren't at all rattled by Russia's blatant
attempts to unduly influence events in Ukraine during the Maidan period:
According to government documents released by former Deputy Interior Minister Hennadiy Moskal,
Russian officials served as advisers to the operations against protesters. Codenamed "Wave"
and "Boomerang", the operations involved the use of snipers to disperse crowds and capture
the protesters' headquarters in the House of Trade Unions. Before some police officers defected,
the plans included the deployment of 22,000 combined security troops in Kiev.[84] According
to the documents, the former first deputy of the Russian GRU stayed at the Kiev Hotel, played
a major role in the preparations, and was paid by the Security Services of Ukraine.. agents
had been stationed in Kiev throughout the Euromaidan protests, had been provided with "state
telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and had kept in regular contact with
Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups
which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities
of this so-called antiterrorist operation.
@Mr. Hack There is a wonderful episode from a famous novel by Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol,
where an official tells a story of an officer's widow who allegedly whipped herself with a lash.
According to your fiction (since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan'
and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev), Russians have arranged
the regime change in Kiev themselves – "cut off your nose to spite your face," in short. You have
also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept
and its ziocon handlers.
Here is a report from much more reliable source of information than the ziocon-controlled MSM:
"Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance, " by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html
Repost:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/
since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan'
presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev
Just where have I ommitted reference to Nuland and Brennan. You must be mixing up my comments
with somebody else? I've noted that both were in Kyiv, but question their ability to direct a
movement that was homegrown from the very beginning and till the bitter end.
You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the
US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.
You're right, I have for the most part omitted reference to any far right parties. Svoboda,
the largest of these, barely can muster 3% support in national elections. I'd rather concentrate
my purview on the other 97% of the voter base, than on a 3% minority party.
But since you've brought up what I've conveniently omitted, HOW ABOUT YOU? No comment regarding
the obtrusive and deadly amalgamation of FSB personnel in Ukraine during these events? From what
I've read, they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies or courses in how to create a
civil society?
" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan
who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian
population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince the UNZ readers that the
Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime Minister? – Mr. Groysman?
"Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How come that the predominantly anti-semitic
Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain
that this is also the Russians' fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli
to the governorship of Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence
with the regime change in 2014.
"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable sources, from
consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus (
http://turcopolier.typepad.com )
have ever suggested that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep
in mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic
Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they are
hated by ziocons.
@Rurik some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59
Yes, indeed. You beat me to it.
" President Trump has decided to end the CIA's covert program to arm and train moderate
Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according
to U.S. officials."
Now that they've "decided," let's hope they get on with it, (and don't compensate with some
other lunacy).
His essay includes remarks about how US ratings agencies appear to be adjuvant parts of
the Treasury economic warfare unit; the application of lessons learned in production of
military assets to ensuring that civilian enterprises benefit from leading edge technologies
to gain significant product improvement and cost reductions; and further detail on the high
speed rail system being developed.
Debt is not the main parameter of Uncle Scumbag's decline. It is the de-diversification and
offshoring of most manufacturing. Aside from the military sector, the US civilian economy has
transformed into a mercantile trickle down of cheap imports sold at high prices. Nobody has
demonstrated how the downsized, right-sized, and offshored economy is supposed to be
sustainable. All I see is a catabolic process where enough money keeps circulating in the
system as the middle class disappears. The trickle down injection of money creates retail low
wage jobs and props up consumer demand. But ultimately the consumers in the USA will become a
minority. There is a clear shift of the job spectrum from well paying ones (related to
manufacturing) to low wage ones (retail sector and "services"). Consumption is lubricated by
debt increases both private and public (the local and federal governments in the USA are
propping up consumption).
US multinationals do not care since they gain consumers abroad faster than they lose
consumers at home. A globalist mega-corporation wins from the expansion of the middle class
in China, India and elsewhere. These corporations are literally walking over the dead body of
the USA to reach their goals.
By contrast, Russia is diversifying and de-offshoring and import substituting. As the
cherry on top of this GDP growth cake, Russia has a very low debt (both public and private).
Russia's growth and development is basically natural and not artificial stimulus through debt
generation.
The trash talk about "Russia does not make anything" (Obama) and "Russia is a gas
station posing as an economy" (McShitStain) reflects deep insecurity by US leaders.
They know
that post-globalism America will be a 3rd world husk. Trump is going to have to really act
like a dictator to unseat the globalist corporate interests that steer the US. I don't see
this happening.
"... But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated statements that their patience is wearing thin. ..."
"... On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." ..."
"... Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane. ..."
"... Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix. ..."
A 45-acre Russian diplomatic compound near Centreville, Md., that was seized in December 2016.
After President Trump's victory in November, Michael T. Flynn, who went on to become the national
security adviser
for 24 days
, prevailed upon President Vladimir V. Putin to
refrain from retaliating
, with the promise that United States policy toward Russia would be
far more accommodating under a Trump administration.
Mr. Trump, at the time president-elect, praised Mr. Putin's restraint,
posting
on Twitter
, "Great move on delay" and "I always knew he was very smart!"
But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated
statements that their patience is wearing thin.
Russia began focusing attention on the two seized compounds in the lead up to the
first meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump
at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany,
on July 7.
Both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry mentioned them frequently, hinting that the diplomatic
retreats were perhaps something Mr. Trump could easily deliver as a friendly gesture for the first
meeting. Mr. Putin did raise the issue with the American president, according to Dmitri S. Peskov,
the Kremlin spokesman.
But with Trump associates under investigation for ties with the Russians, the president is hesitant
to send any signals of weakness. So it did not happen then, either. Since that meeting, the official
tone has turned more belligerent, with Russia threatening to expel American diplomats to match the
35 Russian diplomatic staff members kicked
out
of the United States at the same time that the two compounds were seized.
On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any
headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a
blunt statement
. In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other
concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia
has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."
The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax on Tuesday, "The fact
that this issue hasn't been settled actually poisons the atmosphere and makes a lot of things extremely
complicated."
Mr. Ryabkov and the United States under secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon, discussed the property
in talks in Washington on Monday.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of
the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in
Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed
back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight"
and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing
standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually
wane.
Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who
would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch
attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration
would find difficult to fix.
And on Tuesday, Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a conference call with journalists
that "our patience is still running out."
Below is an unedited set of notes from a lecture given by former U.S.
Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock, Jr. sometime in Fall of 2016. This was before I
started blogging about lectures seriously, so the notes may seem patchy in places.
All the usual disclaimers; shadowquoted to the max.
On allegations of Russian interference in the elections
Can Russia influence the campaign? Sure! Anybody they endorse is likely to lose votes.
Ambassador Matlock is skeptical of interference allegations.
I cannot imagine that if our election system is well managed, that any external actor can
hack and change the election results.
He also believes the idea that the Russians prefer Trump is shaky. Many Russians prefer
Hillary due to her predictability.
What does the new president need to understand?
U.S. foreign policy is in many respects not serving the national interest.
trapped in never-ending wars
politically split at home into two antagonistic factions
tied to "allies" whose interests aren't the same as ours – might be drawn into
conflicts that are not in our interest
estranged from potential partners
infrastructure in need of repair – gross overspending in military, 100+ bases
abroad
current policy threatens new nuclear arms race
Why has this happened?
U.S. foreign policy has become too concentrated on militarism and the use of force to solve
problems.
The most serious threats facing the world today are:
Nuclear weapons
Global warming/environmental degradation
failed states/terrorism
Disease
International crime and corruption
All are only exacerbated by military force, and none can be managed without active
cooperation with Russia and china.
Ambassador Matlock says the future of the world, and indeed mankind, will not be determined
by geopolitical conquest or control of territory. The greatest challenges transcend national
boundaries and can only be solved through international cooperation.
How did we get off
track?
triumphialism/unilateralism after the Cold War – the U.S. started treating Russia
as a defeated nation. However, the U.S. did not defeat the USSR. The USSR collapsed due to
internal pressure.
behavior seen abroad as imperialist
failure to understand others' perceptions
insistence on democracy promotion/regime change. If a country isn't a democracy, change
the regime. This is based upon the assumption that democracy is the natural state of mankind.
However, it takes time to develop democratic institutions, and the people must be ready for
it.
Russian mistakes
overreaction to US/NATO/EU moves
military invention with neighbors
violation of prior agreements and international law
annexation of Crimea will be costly; Donbass fighting is a bleeding wound in Russia's
most important neighbor
These mistakes have costs aside from Western sanctions.
On sanctions. They don't incentivize a Russian change in policy and allow Russians to claim
that the problem lies not with their own government's policy, but with American
hostility.
Mistaken ideas
Control of land and people equals strength
The goal should be to maximize power (power for what?)
We should not think of power as a hierarchy: Do more powerful nations have rights or
privileges denied others?
Rivalry for control of territory benefits nobody. It damages or destroys the area fought
over.
Military force cannot create democracy in another country.
Priority tasks
Restore nuclear cooperation with Russia and bring China into the loop.
Stop military competition with China.
Stop expanding the alliance system and make clear there is no blank check to defend risky
behavior.
With both Russia and China, seek areas where cooperation is possible to mutual
benefit.
Long term:
Reduce the military component in foreign policy.
Withdraw from others' fights.
Talk to everyone.
End democracy promotion abroad, demonstrate its virtues at home.
Give Russia and China incentive to feel part of the industrial/post-industrial 21st
century world.
The situation is not hopeless.
Trump could be convinced he needs a different approach to be a "winner". Hillary may want to
overshadow the legacy of her husband and predecessor. Just as Reagan, elected on an
anticommunist platform, surprised people, so could Hillary.
Matlock concluded the lecture
with the following quote from Senator J. William Fulbright:
Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence.
"... There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted Part III of my series this morning on the turbines. ..."
"... do something ..."
"... " Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination." ..."
Germany's Siemens said on Monday at least two of its gas turbines had been moved "against
its will" from Russia to Crimea, a region subject to sanctions barring EU firms providing it with
energy technology
Siemens, which has repeatedly insisted it was not aware the turbines were destined for Crimea,
said it would press criminal charges against those responsible for diverting the turbines .
Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to
return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination. It said it was evaluating what
additional actions were possible.
#####
Is this a PR/face saving stunt? Where exactly are they going to file charges, Moscow, Berlin
or Brussels. Maybe if they string it out until after Merkel's re-election they can gently let
it drop. Otherwise, they could always just f/k off and leave Russia. Now that would be good for
their business. I don't see them being among approved bidders for Russian projects in future.
There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted
Part III of my series this morning on the turbines.
And wouldn't you know it, Prof.
Robinson posted a comment on my blog with a link to a lenta piece claiming that the turbines ARE
in fact of native Russian manufacture!
(Something which I tend to doubt, but I'll look into this .)
Anyhow, now I'm as confused as a hare at a dog show, and I don't know what to believe any more.
I'll continue my posts tomorrow, but taking the lenta link into account.
Bottom line: Somebody out there is lying – GASP! Either the turbines are German, or they're
not! And either the Germans knew the turbines were destined for Crimea, or they didn't know! And
either the Russians are lying about the turbines being of native Russian manufacture, or .
Perhaps they are Siemens products manufactured to Siemens specifications in Russia, under license.
That's far from uncommon, although I'm not sure to what extent it is done in Russia. But we know
it is, because Russia intended to buy only the first two MISTRAL Class assault carriers from France
– until the US State Department stepped in and fucked everything up for everybody, including and
mostly France – and build the second pair in Russia.
I'm pretty confident that they are pissed off they have to do anything, just because somebody
blew the whistle. They have no choice now, they have to act or it will just snowball, with hysterical
reporters roaring that Siemens isn't going to do anything when are they going to
do something ??
Siemens is, of course, the builder of the Velaro high-speed train used in Russia, where it
is called the Sapsan , or Peregrine Falcon. Russia bought 240 trains, 1,200 cars, and
– most importantly –
awarded Siemens a 40-year contract for preventive and all other maintenance . I doubt very
much if they will jeopardize that over a couple of gas turbines. But the yapping press must be
appeased.
Siemens has no legal case. Just like no car manufacturer controls what you do with your car (e.g.
who you sell it to), Siemens has no control over its turbines in the aftermarket.
"Technopromexport bought four unfinished turbine assemblies on the secondary market and had
them rebuilt and modernized."
Does not sound like these are brand new, fully assembled systems. BTW, Siemens has zero control
over its products after they are sold. Perhaps if Russian law recognized some contract term that
resale or rebuilding was forbidden then Siemens would have a case. Siemens would have no case
in Russia based on contract laws in other jurisdictions and has to lump whatever Russian law dishes
out. You can see similar limitations on warranties for products in North America: different states
and provinces control warranties differently. Also, I have never heard of contract terms for any
non-military product that impose such draconian limitations. Russia ***bought*** these aftermarket
turbines and not leased them from Siemens.
That sounds like an end-user agreement. Under such an agreement, the purchaser must notify the
seller prior to reselling the item to any third party. That usually happens with defense-related
equipment or proprietary technology which the vendor fears will be reverse-engineered. As far
as I know there is no reason to believe such an agreement was in force, and if it were the entity
in trouble would not be Russia, but the country which sold them to Russia. In that case it was
very likely to have been Germany itself.
" Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to
return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination."
"... Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world." ..."
"... When American or European voters calculate that war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt. ..."
"... Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today, but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed to see the light). ..."
"... There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent pose against the US. ..."
"... Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war. ..."
"... State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality. ..."
"... No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities, privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets. ..."
"... The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed, leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind. ..."
"... Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section? ..."
"... My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty. ..."
"... ,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues, the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers. Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play, at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy. ..."
"... This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state. ..."
Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment
strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather
the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic
strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West
in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world."
In war, feats of courage, while awarded medals after the event, are usually irrationally motivated
when they happen. Instead of courage to understand, Hellevig may mean something more like cost-benefit
analysis, as performed in the minds of voters. When American or European voters calculate that
war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards
Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt.
Hellevig doesn't have a programme for that as much as a programme for changing hearts and minds
in the policy-making centres of Moscow. Here are his recommendations:
"All further privatization, based on the failed globalist liberal ideology, must be rejected and
instead Russia must strengthen state ownership in key branches of the economy, in order to build
globally competitive national champions." "Russia's highly successful import substitution program
[must continue]. This is the kind of thing Russia must continue to invest in, but not forgetting
to heed our advice, that state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries."
"Russia must also speed up investments in transport and other public infrastructure as well as
investment in urban renewal and amelioration programs, in the way it has been done in Moscow."
"Cut interest rates. In a bewildering policy motivated by inflation targeting, the Russian Central
Bank has inflicted record high real interest on the economy ever since end of 2015. Presently
the primary real interest rate stands at a stunning 5%. This is an unprecedented situation in
a global comparison. On the contrary, the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have
fought against recession by bringing the real interest rates to historical lows, even to negative
territory. Without this excessive austerity the Russian economy would have fared yet much betters,
especially so the consumer Both charts show that the birth rates have fallen with high real interest
rates. The Central Bank therefore must take urgent measures to reduce the gap before the situation
worsens further."
Who does Hellevig think, from Putin on down, believes these things, or is even willing to consider
the case for them?
Sergei Glazyev is obvious, but he is window-dressing in the Kremlin wall. Not one of his policy
recommendations has been adopted, nor even endorsed in public by the president; for details,
click to open . Instead, Glazyev is treated to public dressing-downs from Putin's spokesman,
Dmity Peskov. Glazyev, to be sure, is a prickly, vain character with a voice pitch that compares
unfavourably to chalk across a blackboard. Those are not disqualifications for his ideas.
In his latest presentation on the economy, Putin sounded all of Hellevig's findings, with the
exception of the imports-to-GDP ratio and surpassing Germany. However, Putin committed to none of
Hellevig's recommendations. For the full text of the president's June 15 "Direct Line" broadcast,
read this . Addressing
the criticism of Central Bank interest rate policy – the only Russian target Hellevig explicitly
attacks -- Putin agreed with the critics; he also agreed with the Central Bank.
"I very much hope that the Central Bank continues to move cautiously towards reducing the key
interest rate," Putin started.
"Why has the Central Bank adopted such a cautious approach? Unfortunately, the Russian economy
still depends on oil and gas. The price of natural gas depends on the price of oil, and a special
formula is used to calculate it. The price of oil has recently exceeded $50, and today it is only
$48, I think. The Central Bank believes that if it declines, the key interest rate would have to
be adjusted. What matters most for us right now is not the key interest rate itself, but avoiding
any sharp fluctuations in the key interest rate. We need to ensure a stable exchange rate for our
national currency, the ruble. This is what underpins the Central Bank's cautious approach. Some may
like it, others may not. I am simply trying to explain the Central Bank's logic. It deserves respect."
Left to right: Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina; Finance Minister Anton Siluanov; ex-Finance
Minister, Putin adviser and patron of the other two, Alexei Kudrin, at their own SPIEF session, June
16, 2016
So who else is Hellewig addressing with the new report? The regrettable answer is noone in particular.
Russia's enemies are in for a long war, Hellevig acknowledges himself. US Congress action to finalize
the new sanctions bill may come this month, even before the August summer recess; for details of
the new Russian targets and US weapons to be deployed, according to the new statute, read
this . A veto by President Trump is unlikely because there are two-thirds majorities in the Senate
and House of Representatives to override.
So Hellevig's "What Doesn't Kill You" is a report in a vacuum unless it is convincing in the domestic
producers' market, and in foreign investor markets.
Sentiment for the future of the Russian economy is measurable in what Russians with cash and capital
say they plan to do. If they are producing, shipping, buying and selling more, that will show in
growth rates for electricity consumption, cargo tonnage moved on railroads, and the flow of cash
and capital goods inward and outward. The latest measures of the electricity and rail indicators
show single-digit growth upon the depressed base numbers prevailing last year. However, the numbers
for capital outflow, including Russian businessmen on the run, are also growing. The closer you get
to the individuals who are moving their cash abroad, the less confidence in the future you hear.
From the regular monthly polling of confidence in the future on the part of Russian businesses,
it's clear there is less optimism than Hellevig's: the score last month remained negative, as it
had been in April and May. The minus-1 score wasn't as bad as last December, but at minus-8 even
that was nowhere near as bad as the all-time low in measured Russian business confidence – minus-20
in 2008. For more details, read
this .
The sentiment of foreign investors should be estimated differently. The long money goes into Russian
debt; the short or hot money is in Russian equity. Normally, they move in parallel. But for confidence
in Russian bonds and confidence in Russian shares, the trend lines this year have been running in
opposite directions. By the end of June, foreign buying of Russian debt issues rose sharply, compared
to April and May, with an aggregate of $2.8 billion invested last month. For shares the situation
has been the reverse. Funds holding Russian shares have been selling steadily for the past four months,
and $1.6 billion has been withdrawn over this period,
according to EPFR Global.
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly
explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially
to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post
Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither
liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are
different flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that delivers
the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets.
Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism
razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue -- and this
is why Medicare for All is always first with me -- is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from
despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count
makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering
and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics -- even the worthy fight to help the refugees
Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created -- bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration
with the news flow -- currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine
campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in
the State and in the press -- a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard
as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts
or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also
very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for
voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility
creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes
all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical
level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen
years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Regarding the Spirit of NATO: I'm reminded of the discussion in "The Guns of August" about
the French attitude, in the generation leading up to WW I, toward the war they were planning.
Lots of General Staff activity, including jockeying for position as the One who would Rule Them
All, and the reliance on a supposed "national psyche" of "attack, attack, attack" to be rendered
victorious by the Superior Elan of the Nation and its forces.
Don't forget the British calls (around 1910-1913) for a "little war" that would be quickly
over – once we showed those Germans who's the boss Didn't quite work out that way. The viciousness
with which Germany was punished after WWI hid a lot of French and British (unacknowledged) guilt.
It is bloody unbelievable that 100 yrs after that war (plus WWII), the West is still warmongering.
China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project – lest there'll be
nothing left to change.
But of course, out of it all, a marvelous new tradition and industrial base, Krupp and Fokker
and the British and French and Scandinavian, etc. armaments industry, and the inventive new fonancialists
that enabled it all and all that nationalist patriotic fervor! And Bernays, too!
"A certain amount of killing has always been a concomitant of business "
Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously
advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's
*The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today,
but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for
all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed
to see the light).
There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient
with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent
pose against the US.
Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence
in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that
has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war.
"China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project"
From reading a lot of Finian Cunningham and Willem Middelkoop, it appears that is exactly what
is happening.
"Hellevig's point deserves repeating -- the Russian economy is far more diversified than the
enemy thinks. "
Hellevig calls the west "our western partners" but Helmer above is calling who the "enemy"?
and enemy to whom? From Helmer's perspective that doesn't make sense. Is Helmer American? His
first paragraph is equally confusing. Is Helmer recommending that a country under Economic Threat
by a Stronger power hide economic gains, or the opposite ?
Hellevig: "state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries."
Doesn't sound like good advice to me. Some subsidies for important fledgling industries sound
like a better idea, like solar for instance.
State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless
junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality.
The truth is that liberalized economies have never been able to compete in the world and never
will be.
Or we can all change our names to "Galt." Voluntarily, or by corporatist/financialist fiat.
Actually seems to be well under way.
Of course the Galtians do want just that precise amount of "regulation," to be provided by
Philosopher Galts from within the monopoly (sic) on the use of force, just the precise amount
that's needed to make the Galtian system work, and to monopolize the government-protected freedom
to loot and cadge subsidies and rents from the rest of us, and make us eat their externalities
Working so well so far, isn't it? Checked the outside air temperature and habitability indexes
around the place lately? But those who profit from skills at looting and rentier-ing kvetch about
the "government" they pervert for personal advantage -- nice to have it both ways.
Let us mopes never try to figure out how to have a "government" that embodies both "civil"
and "service," one that's not immediately captured and twisted by Kochs and Musks and other Robber
Barons. So hard to do, when one has the funhouse-mirror image of the Magna Carta as one of the
Holy Texts
No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities,
privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's
the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets.
"incapable of competing in the international markets": you say that as if it's a Bad Thing
? And that all the "competition" does not, to greater or lesser degree, manifest every one of
those supposed noncompetitive "weaknesses" of failings?
The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed,
leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind.
I got what he was saying, I think, and if it was not irony, then my point is that all those
bad things Hiho cites are happening everywhere, to one degree or another, under neoliberal-neocon
globalization. All part of the global race to the bottom, which I believe each of the presumed
"bad things" cited by Hiho are part and parcel of. With the burden of militarized attempts to
achieve Full Spectrum Dominance laid on top, though it sure is not clear, given the ascendancy
of post-supra-national corporations and wealth concentration in the hands of Supra-state individuals
with no national ties or loyalties, "cui bono" from that effort.
One wonders who and what the Received Wisdom of pursuit of imperial autarky-hegemony and "global
competitiveness"might be expected to benefit
And the outcome, the industrial output, of the global system-as-it-is seems demonstrably to
be killing the habitability of the planet. And of importance to us "top predators," the "comfort"
and sustainability of our own brittle species
More of the same gets you exactly what, again? Minute local short-term Elites and their self-indulgences,
who seem to have the "feudalism creation" process well under way, for their personal benefit ?
You need to address this particular article and not engage in a drive-by attack. You apparently
can't find anything wrong but don't like where this goes. This piece makes clear it depends on
a single source and Helmer has written it up. So what, pray tell, is hard to understand about
that?
Our Richard Smith writes about scammers and his articles are similarly difficult because the
relations among players and mechanisms are complex. That is often why Helmer's articles are dense:
he's dealing with lots of material from sources with their own motives.
Yves, thank you for adding that. I took "Carey" to be a kind of FUD-peddling troll. Can't let
people start thinking well of folks like Helmer, now can they? Got to impeach whenever there's
the chance.
Of course I could have it all wrong, and "Carey" was commenting in all sincerity In faceless
bitspace, it's so hard to know
Glad to see you defending Helmer. He very often comes up with some pretty good insights. But
my God he is sometime difficult to follow. Someone who makes the reader work that hard just might
be able to use a good copy editor. But, on the other hand,he does make one think.
Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish
and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase
Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his
article posted in today's NC Links section?
To what extent has the growing economic relationship between Russia and China reduced the effectiveness
of US sanctions on Russia and indirectly led to derivative policy blowback with potentially damaging
implications for the US, such as loss of petrodollar hegemony to the Chinese yuan? China is now
putting pressure on the Saudis to accept payment for oil in yuan by using China's oil imports
from Russia as negotiating leverage.
Seems like an awful lot of ignorance and miscalculation by the usual suspects to me.
My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about
ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other
import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were
afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian
people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty.
To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and
sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance
with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section?
I'll add that -- as far as I can tell, at least -- there's almost never any news about this issue
in the three chief political establishment outlets (NYT, WaPo, and WSJ). You'd think that the
editors of those papers regard the nascent Russia-China strategic partnership as verboten. Something
unmentionable.
Helllevig's report is unabashedly pro – Putin so that doesn't gel too well with Helmer – a
consistent, if generally fair critic.
Hard to know what the essential point of Helmer's take on the report really is – a warning
against perceived Russian hubris vis a vis NATO?
Wariness of Glazeyev's proposed reforms? Contrary to Helmer, I believe they have not been adopted
not because they are perceived to be wrong, but because they are currently too radical for the
Russian economy – still very much part of the global system. (Though the SWIFT expulsion threat
was challenged vigorously, and a Sino – Russian alternative is being put in place, it would have
caused havoc if it had gone ahead.)
The impression that he's a 'narcissistic' attention – w***é is a new one on me Maybe Helmer
is buddies with Kudrin, your standard market ideologue and a dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal (despite
his organisation of financial reserves to cushion the effects of sanctions, he is not ideologically
a threat to current Western dogma.)
Or is Helmer uneasy at the prospect of major power nationalising it's central bank?
All in all, a rather rum rumination.
Best read the full report until Helmer publishes an article offering more clarity on his own
perspective.
I've said in passing that the West expected its sanctions to bring Russia to its knees. They've
now been on for years. Even though GDP took a hit, the impact appears to be markedly less than
what we inflicted on ourselves in the financial crisis, in part because Russia engaged in a muscular
response (such as improving domestic industries, like cheese making, where they had chosen before
to be significantly dependent on imports). And the sanctions also didn't hurt Putin's popularity,
in fact they increased it. Even the Moscow intelligensia went quiet for a good year plus. And
Putin brought a big increase in living standards. The GDP reduction is a blip compared to where
Russia was circa the late 1990s.
So while Helllevig may be overegging the pudding, it's accurate to say that the sanctions didn't
damage Russia anywhere near as much as the West hoped.
One issue is all the reports I can find easily (thanks to Google crapification) list GDP in
$ terms. I'd like to see a GDP series in rouble terms, since that's what matters to Russians,
particularly since Russia isn't a huge importer.
I did find a report at Barrons which is relatively bullish on Russia, although not at bullish
as Hellevig, based on World Bank forecasts:
Russia's economy can expand at a 1.3% pace in 2017 and by 1.4% in 2018 and 2019, the World
Bank said Tuesday.
The ruble is strengthening today, up 0.7% against the U.S. dollar, and Russian equities
are rallying in Moscow. The VanEck Vectors Russia exchange-traded fund (RSX) is higher by 0.5%
this morning, as are the U.S.-traded shares of Sberbank Rossia (SBRCY). Moody's Investors Service
projected slightly higher GDP growth of 1.5% this year and next, but maintained its junk rating
on Russian government bonds Monday.
Another statistic that goes unnoticed in the USA is the extent to which Russia is an outlier
among the world's major economies. Where debt/GDP ratios in the US are 107% along with basket
state countries like Italy and Greece, Russia is nearly debt free at 17%!by far the lowest in
the world for a major industrial power.
Looks like the military-industrial state war hawks better make sure that the US can continue
to impose the dollar as the world reserve currency!–. All those new SUV's purchased with 7 year
loans will get pretty thirsty if the US has to earn the money to import the fuel to run them instead
of just having the FED create the money with a key stroke.
,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports
and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues,
the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth
in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over
the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still
substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from
oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the
economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order
to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the
one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers.
Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors
and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have
supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play,
at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy.
Given the fortuitous results the sanctions have allegedly produced are we to presume Vlad the
Impaler (of Political Opponents and Truth Seeking Journalists) spent some time this past week
lobbying for their continuation?
On the one hand I agree we have plenty of interests in common. And if the Russian people are
content with rule by the siloviki they should be allowed that. We should think long and hard however
before accepting the insinuation of their model into our own imbalanced and (hopefully) evolving
system. That WAS the implication of the piece wasn't it? Or did I miss a reference to a downside
of kleptocracy.
IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage
a government and economy of openness and participation.
BTW: Someone should write a piece looking at the similarities between Putin's agitation of
the Orthodox Church to his own advantage and Donald's winning over of the Christian Right in this
country.
"IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage
a government and economy of openness and participation."
So Regime Change and All the Openness and Participation the US always brings? And that is your
Long Play?
> Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy.
Perhaps said reference was omitted in deference to the readership, who labor under our own
journalist-persecuting kleptocracy and do not need a reminder.
The fall in the Russian economy was brought on by the oil price collapse not the sanctions.
In a perverse kind of way the US then forced on Russia a kind of Trumpian make Russia great again
set of policies through sanctions which unexpectedly led to an industrial rebirth which fully
offset the oil price collapse, if the west had really wanted to undermine Russia then the best
way would have been to encourage capital flight by helping the debauched overseas fantasies of
the oligarchs they targeted.
I have often said that sanctions only put up prices, based on what I know has occurred historically,
but Yves exposes a further risk in one of her comments. France had a share of the cheese market
in Russia until she was persuaded to cease supplying. Since then domestic producers have made
many of the cheeses France used to supply. That market has likely gone for France. Trade is trade,
war is war. We should try not to confuse the two.
It is worse than that. Remember those two Mistral-class ships that the French built for the
Russian navy until, under pressure from NATO, they reneged on those contracts and were forced
to pay a heavy penalty? Now anybody that has contracts with France, particularly military contracts,
will have to wonder if France will honour those contracts if put under enough pressure.
Business hates uncertainty and so you wonder how many contracts France has lost since it proved
to be an unreliable business partner.
Come to think of it, our mob has signed a $50 billion contract with France for 12 you-bewt
submarines. I wonder if-
A- That was under pressure by others to compensate France for the loss of the Mistral contracts
and
B- That was why the insistence of the subs being built in Adelaide. Not only for local jobs
but also to ensure that there would be no future funny business about actual delivery. Hmmm
When I hear about Congress demanding sanctions, I visualize John McCain sputtering. So much
of what passes for those great deliberations seems to be in effect more kayfabe. They produce
what they think the public expects, as filtered through their minders on K Street, in the media
and elsewhere.
Sanctions can be productive, when used thoughtfully and with limited scope. In the present context,
there does not appear to be much thought given the ongoing "Russians Hacked, dammit" looped commentary.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/53/1/012018/pdf
The problems and prospects of the public–private partnership in the Russian fuel and energy sector
SM Nikitenko1,3 and EV Goosen1,2
1Federal Research Center for Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Kemerovo, Russia
2Kemerovo State University, Kemerovo, Russia
3Kemerovo Institute (Branch) of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
Kemerovo, Russia
This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The
analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the
Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth
in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include
budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship,
the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state.
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago." ..."
"... A new study on inequality in Russia, published in February by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets, and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse, according to this English summary. ..."
"... So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system. ..."
"... S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow. ..."
"... In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion. ..."
Posted on
July 4, 2017 by Yves
Smith By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Not since the German government arranged for Vladimir Lenin to return to Russia, crossing German
territory in a sealed train on April 16, 1917, has a foreign state at war with Russia done something
as revolutionary as the US Senate did on June 15, 2017. That is when, by a vote of 98 to 2, the senators
began the process of attacking the Russian oligarchs. They are the men who have dominated the Russian
economy for more than twenty years, concentrating more national wealth in their hands than can be
found in any other major state in the world today.
Unremarked by the senators themselves; unreported by the American press; and unnoticed, almost,
in Russia, the new measure - if adopted by the full Congress and signed into law by President Donald
Trump - will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories
and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US companies,
bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad. If targeting the oligarchs is followed by
formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad. The Communist Party
of the Russian Federation hasn't contemplated this much.
Senate Bill S. 722 started in March with Iran as its target. For short, it was called the ''Countering
Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017''. Title I of the bill and 29 pages of its provisions
deal with Iran. Then Title II was added. It runs for 94 pages and targets Russia. Read the text in
full here
.
The Anglo-American business media have reported the bill as an escalation in US economic sanctions
against Russian targets, extending beyond the oil and gas sector. The Wall Street Journal
interpreted the legislation as an attempt to "wrest more control of Russia policy from the Trump
administration". The Financial Times
reported
the bill would "tighten existing sanctions and threatens to broaden the restrictions from energy
and banking to metals, mining, railways and shipping."
The newspaper failed to read the small print, noticing few of the novel details,
except for one - the bill's threat to strike at European companies engaged in building and operating
the new Russian gas pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream II. According to Section 232, the US will prohibit
a company from "mak[ing] an investment described in subsection (b) or sells, leases, or provides
to the Russian Federation, for the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, goods, services,
technology, information, or support described in subsection (c)- (1) any of which has a fair market
value of $1,000,000 or more; or (2) that, during a 12-month period, have an aggregate fair market
value of $5,000,000 or more."
In practice, as the text of the bill continues, this is aimed at all Russian exports of energy,
including pipelines under the Black Sea and in the Far East, and tanker shipping, particularly the
oil and gas tanker company, Sovcomflot. Privatization of part of the state shareholding in Sovcomflot,
which has been postponed for years, has been promised by federal property agency officials for later
this month.
However, the Senate bill threatens to sanction any company, US or other, which makes an investment
of up to $10 million "if the investment directly and significantly contributes to the ability of
the Russian Federation to privatize state-owned assets in a manner that unjustly benefits- (1) officials
of the Government of the Russian Federation; or (2) close associates or family members of those officials."
That puts the kybosh on Gennady Timchenko, front-runner for the Sovcomflot share sale, and father-in-law
of Gleb Frank, son of the chief executive of Sovcomflot, Sergei Frank. For background, read
this .
But the Senate bill goes much further than attacking foreign investment in share sales for Russian
state companies. It attacks the shareholding control of most of the country's resource assets – that's
to say, the oligarchs. Section 241 of the new bill is entitled "Report on Oligarchs and Parastatal
Entities of the Russian Federation."
Read carefully
.
"(a) In general.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of
State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed report on the following:
(1) Senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, including the following:
(A) An identification of the most significant senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in
the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth.
(B) An assessment of the relationship between individuals identified under subparagraph (A) and
President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian ruling elite.
(C) An identification of any indices of corruption with respect to those individuals.
(D) The estimated net worth and known sources of income of those individuals and their family
members (including spouses, children, parents, and siblings), including assets, investments, other
business interests, and relevant beneficial ownership information.
(E) An identification of the non-Russian business affiliations of those individuals.
(2) Russian parastatal entities, including an assessment of the following:
(A) The emergence of Russian parastatal entities and their role in the economy of the Russian
Federation.
(B) The leadership structures and beneficial ownership of those entities.
(C) The scope of the non-Russian business affiliations of those entities."
(3) The exposure of key economic sectors of the United States to Russian politically exposed persons
and parastatal entities, including, at a minimum, the banking, securities, insurance, and real estate
sectors.
(4) The likely effects of imposing debt and equity restrictions on Russian parastatal entities,
as well as the anticipated effects of adding Russian parastatal entities to the list of specially
designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the
Department of the Treasury.
(5) The potential impacts of imposing secondary sanctions with respect to Russian oligarchs, Russian
state-owned enterprises, and Russian parastatal entities, including impacts on the entities themselves
and on the economy of the Russian Federation, as well as on the economies of the United States and
allies of the United States."
The senators voted in favour without deciding on a definition of Russian oligarch, corruption,
"closeness to the regime", "relationship to President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian
ruling elite", or "parastatal". Still, the meaning and intention are as clear as the US Air Force's
MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) – the bunker buster. The targeting of Section 241 includes almost
every major Russian corporation, its control shareholders, associated banks, and their offshore businesses.
The stated aim is nothing less than to destroy those of them who side with the Kremlin; recruit the
remainder for US-backed regime change; and pit each against the other, all against the Kremlin.
Selective oligarch targeting is already in effect;
click to open for the current list. Timchenko has been sanctioned by the US and the European
Union since 2014. Other oligarchs also proscribed include Sergei Chemezov, head of the state asset
holding, Russian Technologies (Rostec); Yury Kovalchuk of Bank Rossiya; Boris and Arkady Rotenberg,
who control SMP Bank plus pipeline and infrastructure businesses, and Roman Rotenberg, Boris's son;
Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft; Nikolai Shamalov, also of Bank Rossiya and father of Kirill
Shamalov, Putin's son-in-law; and Vladimir Yakunin, former head of state-owned Russian Railways.
The Christmas dinner which Putin has hosted each year since the war started in Ukraine identifies
by name four dozen potential targets in the latest act of US war. Read the guest list
for 2014 ;
for 2015 ; and
for 2016 .
Missing from the official sanctions lists so far, but with substantial US assets, are Anatoly
Chubais, head of the state high-technology holding Rusnano;
Mikhail Abyzov , financial backer of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and minister of open government
in his cabinet; and Mikhail Fridman of the Alfa Bank, LetterOne and Vimpelcom groups. Vimpelcom has
been prosecuted for corruption by the US Department of Justice and fined $397.6 million, the ninth
largest such penalty in US history. More recently, Alfa was
targeted for allegedly operating clandestine connections with the Trump presidential campaign.
Two of the oligarchs with valuable residential assets in New York, and solid relationships with
Putin, are Oleg Deripaska (lead image), who controls the state aluminium monopoly Rusal; and Roman
Abramovich, the control shareholder of the Evraz steel group, which runs steel and pipemills in the
US and Canada. Deripaska owns at least two homes in Manhattan, but is
prevented from living there by a longstanding US visa ban which his Washington lobbyist has been
unable to remove. For Deripaska's New York assets, read
this ruling of April 25, 2017, by New York Supreme Court Judge Anil Singh.
Source:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=pFEUA7VGZSJVzEDl_PLUS_NHiTg==&system=prod
An unredacted version of the text of the order can be read
here
. This reveals that Deripaska continues to be targeted by a US visa ban. One of the redactions
Deripaska lawyers have obtained in the court docket reads: "Deripaska emphasizes that his access
to New York is blocked because of a visa problem. Although he has been able to enter New York on
a diplomatic visa, his visits to New York since 2009 have been limited to ten trips for a total of
less than 30 nights. When he was directed by the court to make an effort to attend a trial as a witness
in a case in New York in the Fall of2015, he applied for a visa, but his request was denied."
To view Abramovich's homes on East 75 th Street, Manhattan,
click to open .
Another way to anticipate who will be informally targeted by the US shortly - formally later -
is to look at the concentration of Russian wealth, and identify Russia's ultra high net worth individuals,
the multi-millionaires. By world standards, the Russian count is in the top-20, but trails far behind
the US, China, and several European and Pacific Rim countries.
But when the count is of billionaires and of concentration of national assets in their hands,
Russia leads. In its latest
Global Wealth Report for 2016, Credit Suisse reports: "According to our estimates, the top decile
of wealth-holders owns 89% of all household wealth in Russia. This is significantly higher than any
other major economic power: the corresponding figure is 78% for the United States, for example, and
73% for China. The high concentration of wealth in Russia is reflected in the fact that it has an
estimated 96 billionaires – a total exceeded only by China with 244, and the USA with 582."
The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and
other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth
for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along
with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse
report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago."
"Household wealth in Russia grew rapidly in the initial years of this century, as the country
boomed along with global commodity markets. Between 2000 and 2007, wealth per adult rose eightfold.
Since 2007, however, growth has been slow and uneven – up 14% to date in ruble terms, but down 56%
when measured in current USD, due to ruble depreciation. The USD–RUB rate rose from 25 in 2007 to
34 in mid-2014, and then shot up to 60 by the end of 2014 due to the imposition of financial sanctions.
The rate was 64 in mid-2016. While household wealth per adult has risen from USD 2,940 in 2000 to
USD 10,340 today, the current level is barely above that of ten years ago."
A new study on inequality in Russia,
published in February
by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets,
and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the
Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse,
according to this English summary.
So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the
President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like
Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system.
In the past, there was a brief attempt by the US intelligence services to target some of the oligarchs.
In 2010, when Admiral Dennis Blair was Director of National Intelligence (DNI), his annual threat
assessment for the US Senate Intelligence Committee
reported "[there is] a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among government, organized
crime, intelligence services, and big business figures. An increasing risk from Russian organized
crime is that criminals and criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied
actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets." Implied but
unnamed were Alexei Miller (Gazprom), Deripaska (aluminium), and Suleiman Kerimov (gold).
A year later, Blair's successor as DNI, Lieutenant-General James Clapper, repeated the line: "The
nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among some government officials, organized crime, intelligence
services, and big business figures enhances the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine
competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets."
Read more .
The DNI annual reports were no more than that – no action was recommended, and none followed.
S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House
cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme
of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions,
with or without the formal orders to follow.
In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint
of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary.
So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a
call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
Trump veto, I suspect. For "Fake News" reasons. Doubt an over-ride. Let's get this over with,
and move onto common sense. American legislators are clueless as always, but the blob remains
on the attack.
It passed the Senate 98-2, I don't know why you doubt an over ride. Do you think 32 Senators
will change their mind or that it won't get 2/3 of the House?
The Bill effectively requires Europe to shoot themselves in the other foot or cease using USD
for exchange in Russian trade.
Europe's problem will be Poland where fear and trembling of Russia finds its European root.
The Polish Government would choose poverty before Russian trade and the country has worked assiduously
to build connections and friendships in the EC and parliament. In fact Poland has been America's
'foot in the door' in Europe and the first shipment of US fracked gas has already been received
in that country.
If America can quickly build the LNG carriers needed for the trade there may be a prospect
of keeping US fracking alive whilst diminishing Russian trade but this is contrary to European
interests at a time when the neocon influence in Washington is driving many former friends away.
And now The Koreans Have Launched An ICBM That Could Reach Sarah Palin's Porch In Alaska OMELG!!!
Except the Chinese and Russians say it was only an IRBM!!!! And the Pentagram is gearing up for
another "stop the WMDS how dare you not kowtow to Uncle Sam exercise!!!!"
And even my unpolitical spouse, who nonetheless grew up ducking and covering under her grade
school desk, is feeling the queasy willies, and asking anxious questions, about nuclear weapons
and what is going on, that I have to craft careful answers to.
Forking rotten stupid humans. Could and have screwed up a pretty lovely planet
On a local note, our "neighbors" are putting on what sounds like the start of the Tet offensive,
fireworks and some gunfire, and the local cops in response to a phone call said they are not going
out this national holiday celebration to enforce the law against what some Americans think of
as "celebration." My dogs are going nuts from the explosions, and bits of smoldering guts from
the skyrockets and "mortar-launched display shells and aerial bombs" are drifting down on our
roof and cars and garden and the shade cloth we've stretched over the patio.
Oligarchs should be targeted by the law. Few acquired their billions ethically, fairly, or
as a result of activities that are useful to humanity in general. Here are some more oligarchs
who should be targeted:
will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories
and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US
companies, bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad . If targeting the oligarchs
is followed by formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad.
What about their football or basketball teams, or soccer clubs?
" to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression."
reminds me a bit about a UK news headline earlier this year, running along the lines of: "In
order to thwart Russian aggression, we're sending UK soldiers to their border" a border 2,000+
km from the UK
We have to be more aggressive than they are in order to make them less aggressive. Are they
less aggressive because we're more aggressive, or are they less aggressive because our aggression
will make them more passive? The US Congress gotta know.
And when will the US Congress write a bill to support the American people against their own
aggressive Oligarchs?
"... The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and sanctions is quite remarkable. ..."
"... Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them. In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare. ..."
"... For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float, lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange: ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot). Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was maintained. ..."
"... I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious benefits that we can observe in Greece. ..."
Awara blog is a product of a Russian company that offers services to foreign companies engaged
or interested in Russian markets, so this company has an interest in compiling as rosy picture
as possible.
In one place, the author adds numbers from a table presented just above, wrongly, getting a
"better result". I got an outright false statement: population of Russia is not "at all time high"
but about 9 millions lower. The period of population decline was about 20 years, and it is counterfactual
that it was compensated with 3 years of growth.
And it is hard to tell what does it mean that Russia has "most diversified economy".
But the general picture is consistent with what I have read before, e.g. data from trading
economics.com.
The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev
years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from
the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and
sanctions is quite remarkable.
Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many
crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them.
In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has
a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare.
For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems
tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float,
lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange:
ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot).
Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was
maintained.
Thus we have a combination of neoliberal elements with a very determined strategy to foster
import substitution. Import substitution is detrimental to productivity, but when the economy
is under shock, it is better to loose productivity, especially if the effect is transient, then
employment, which lead to social pathologies -- and government unpopularity. Concerning popularity,
the current generation of Russians know one collapse and the previous oil shock, so apparently
they appreciate orderly reorientation of the economy. Import substitution can easily go wrong,
Argentina is a textbook negative example, and in Venezuela it turned to be a disaster, but Russia
has a much larger internal market and non-oil resources and industries.
I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a
double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes
many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious
benefits that we can observe in Greece.
How long you wanna let this go on? Huh? 'Cause I can keep this up for as long as you can.
Russia
extends countersanctions on the EU for another year , until December 2018. Growth for the
EU for 2018 is
forecast at around 1.4-1.5% . We'll see about that. It is forecast by the same sources to
be
1.5-1.7% for Russia , so we'll see about that, too. I sure hope Russia can survive another
year without French cheese for the kreakly. I have to say, though, that extending economic sanctions
against another country when your own prognosis says their economy will do better than yours sounds
fairly stupid.
Jon Hellevig's Awara blog has published an interesting report into the current state of Russia's
economy after two years of sanctions imposed by the West: "What Does Not Kill You Will Make You
Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years of Sanctions Warfare"
Here's a quick rundown of the report's key findings:
KEY FINDINGS:
Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected
2-3% growth
Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%
Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%
Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified,
but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient
Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize
[Central bank] reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid
Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced
Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)
Inflation falls to near 4%
Unemployment remains low at 5% level
Demographic indicators reach all-time best
Population at 146.8 million – all-time high
Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption. Retail sales down more
than 10%
In effect, the sanctions have acted as a tariffs policy Russia might have introduced to enable
key domestic industries to develop.
Mike Norman Economics blog on the Awara report has some interesting comments on Putin's economic
and financial policy. Russia's Central Bank is apparently still staffed by senior officials (like
Elvira Nabiullina) who adhere to a neoliberal economic approach and who maintain a high interest
rate regime which might be good for pensioners' incomes but bad for people establishing small
businesses and needing loan funding.
What Does Not Kill You Will Make You Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years
of Sanctions Warfare
This report is based on Awara Accounting's research on how the Russian economy managed in 2014
– 2016 to cope with the dual shocks of Western sanctions and the accompanying precipitous fall
of the oil price.
KEY FINDINGS:
Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected
2-3% growth
Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%
Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%
Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified,
but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient
Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize
CB reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid
Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced
Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)
Inflation falls to near 4%
Unemployment remains low at 5% level
Demographic indicators reach all-time best
Population at 146.8 million – all-time high
Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption.
That's excellent news. Oh – unless you work for the State Department or the Poroshenko government.
Keep those sanctions on, Washington! How's your market share doing, Europe?
I love the skewering of the idiots/propagandists who use Russia's exports profile to infer its
diversification level. Since Russia has the smallest imports per GDP of any large economy on the
planet, by definition it must be producing the goods and services that it consumes within its
own borders. The propaganda would have everyone believe that Russia is a resource exporting banana
republic that imports all of its value added goods and services.
The report also repeats the points I raise about the CBR. The CBR is acting to undermine the
Russian economy since it operates on false assumptions. In particular it drinks the propaganda
koolaid that Russia has an import economy due to lack of diversification. So the CBR thinks that
there is more inflation pressure on the economy (i.e. via import price increases due to ruble
forex drops) than there actually is. Putin is failing big time letting Nabiullina carry out her
nonsensical inflation fighting prime rate policy:
Note how the CBR prime interest rate was closer to the inflation rate before the arrival of
Nabiullina. Also note that the inflation rate shows no signs of instability after 2015 so there
is no need for the large spread between the prime rate and the inflation rate. That is, the prime
rate should be at most 4%.
"... "Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," ..."
"... "will probably have to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," ..."
"... "to some sort of a collapse." ..."
"... "This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be harmful," ..."
"... "We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third countries," ..."
"... The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more US Senate adopts amendment on more sanctions against Russia ..."
New sanctions imposed on Russia by the US will certainly make relations between the countries
worse, but will hardly leave Russia hamstrung, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
"Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever
decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," the president
told Vesti on a Saturday program.
Putin was referring to the US Senate's approval of an amendment to an anti-Iran bill that would
prevent US President Donald Trump from lifting current anti-Russian sanctions without congressional
authorization and also impose new broad ones.
If Washington does implement the new sanctions, the Russian government "will probably have
to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," Putin said, adding that this will
in no way lead the country "to some sort of a collapse."
"This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be
harmful," he added.
Earlier, several European countries, including Germany, France and Austria, voiced concern over the
newly proposed sanctions, which could potentially affect European companies working with Russia on
joint energy projects, such as the NordStream 2 gas pipeline.
"We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third
countries," German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told the media
on Friday.
The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure,
which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would
compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give
American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more
US Senate adopts
amendment on more sanctions against Russia
"... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics
and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering
over the last 200 years.
"President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment"
has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality
unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear
to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia,
like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the
neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor
performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively.
In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive
for Russia."
This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin
is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking
him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody
will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western
voice stilled.
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers
from Netherlands.
The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary
inspection before being admitted into the country.
In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe
supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure
to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.
The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers
which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in
Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries,
such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.
Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and
importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected
to continue.
Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for
flowers.
Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the
voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the
flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers,
the article concludes.
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-
"In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion
less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European
Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
"The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting
many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union
could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian
sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.
But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear
that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.
German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive
measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."
"Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's
so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's
economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?
Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine
Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig
eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen
Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts
für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt,
sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung
in Gefahr.
In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves
into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German
business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations,
built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a
key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.
The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc,
experts have said.
European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's
moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic
data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.
"Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have
begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.
"Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just
0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of
Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president
Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."
Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's
share of global profits had "collapsed".
"And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the
ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.
Видимо большинству моих френдов не стоит объяснять - на чьи деньги финансируется "Свобода" и какие цели при этом преследуются.
Стайл сиротинушек активно применялся во времена майданов, американские политруки не видят никаких проблем в том, чтобы не транслировать
его и на русскую континентальную почву. Хенелоры снимают, райтеры пишут, ресурсы размещают. В щаранских мемах этот полемический прием
известен как "слезинка ребенка" или "онижедети". При том, что статистика количества убитых, избитых, униженных, пораженных в правах
людей при Януковиче и при Турчинове-Порошенко измеряется величинами разных порядков.
Ну и. Если бы мне предложили описать всю нечеловеческую скорбь крымского виктимного инсайдера. В качестве сочинения, синопсиса,
сценария и пр.. Я бы написал убедительнее подрядчиков и субподрядчиков "Свободы".
Это не приглашение к сотрудничеству. Это констатация брезгливости к подобному творчеству.
США готовы ввести в российское интернет-пространство, в частности, в социальные сети свои информационные войска.
США готовы ввести в российское интернет-пространство, в частности, в социальные сети свои информационные войска.
По полученным сведениям, кибер-подразделения будут сформированы на базе чешской штаб-квартиры Радио "Свобода" и займутся активным
противодействием России в информационном поле, в частности, "противостоять дезинформации в российской медиасфере посредством различных
соцмедиаплатформ (в частности, Facebook, Twitter, "ВКонтакте" и "Одноклассники"). На это Советом управляющих по вопросам вещания
из бюджета США уже запрошена сумма в 15,6 млн долларов. Такой шаг, по мнению Совета, необходим в связи с тем, что Запад проигрывает
России в информационной войне.
Еще в 2011 году, задолго до киевского майдана и начала украинской гражданской войны, нынешний кандидат в президенты США Хиллари
Клинтон, выступая в Конгрессе США, заявила: "Мы проигрываем информационную войну России и Китаю". С тех пор эта тема не утихает на
страницах западных СМИ, а с началом украинского кризиса она стала доминирующей. Особенно перед утверждением бюджетов на следующие
годы.
Но, крича о своем проигрыше в информационной войне, Запад лукавит. Если бы они действительно проигрывали, то сейчас бы западные
столицы сотрясали многомиллионные протесты по поводу поддержки преступного режима в Киеве, его пронацистской политики и т.д.
Общественное мнение по украинскому кризису сформировано там достаточно однозначно, хотя в последнее время в этой стене, сложенной
из лжи и пропаганды, стали появляться серьезные трещины.
Западные СМИ недоговаривают, что они проиграли информационный поединок не в своих странах, а в самой России. Им не удалось внести
раскол в наше общество, хотя они очень старались. И все "дочери офицеров", пишущие якобы из Крыма с просьбами "спасти их от русской
агрессии" (а на самом деле с американских военных баз), получается, трудились впустую.
Зато теперь они собираются развернуться по полной. Так, "одним из проектов станет Footage vs Footage ("Съемка против съемки").
Предполагается, что этот видеопродукт будет изобличать "российскую телевизионную пропаганду". Кроме того, бороться с Россией собираются
политической сатирой. Планируется и активизация уже существующих отдельных программ по Донбассу, по Крыму.
Так что, начиная с октября 2015-го, а именно тогда начнется очередной финансовый год, нас ждет новый виток жесткой идеологической
атаки со стороны западных пропагандистов. Которая, скорее всего, снова потерпит неудачу, по крайней мере, по двум причинам.
Им не под силу понять наш менталитет - это раз. И слишком сильную прививку от западной пропаганды мы получили от украинского майдана
- это два. И никакие деньги диванным войскам США не помогут одержать победу над нашим сознанием.
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.
RD-180 . But in case there are some readers who have never heard of it, it is the Russian Federation's workhorse rocket engine. Its first flight was 20 years ago, but it was built on the shoulders of the RD-170 , which has been in service since 1985, making it a Soviet project. The RD-180 is essentially a two-combustion-chamber RD-170, which has four and remains the most powerful rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is used by the United States in its Atlas space vehicles.
Russian rocket engines to subsidize the Russian space industry , so that fired rocket scientists will not pack up the wife and kiddies and their few pitiful belongings, and depart for Iran or North Korea. You know; countries that really hate the United States. I swear I am not making that up. Look:
Russia to retaliate
if Washington bans Aeroflot flights to US
